It’s budget season for Federal and State governments and the media is buzzing with assessments and rebuttals and projections of future impact. The question that seems to be at the centre of most conversations, that sets the tone for most analytical pieces, and that energises water-cooler conversations in workplaces and pubs, in shopping centres and homes is this: what’s in it for me? Or perhaps, what’s in it for the cohort of which I am part?
This week’s budget news has temporarily displaced the Israeli/Palestinian conflict from the front page, but that horrific conflict continues, sparking encampments in universities, protest marches, United Nations resolutions, economic sanctions and travel restrictions. Unfortunately, all that seems to have little impact on the power-brokers in this complex socio-political struggle.
And there’s also the Russian assault on Ukraine, which is now ‘old news’ despite the fact that people on both sides of the conflict continue to suffer and die.
And every day there’s something new in the circus that is politics in the USA as Donald Trump attempts to garner support for his presidential campaign while casting himself as the victim in a series of high-profile legal battles. This week Trump received support from former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison who has published a biography in an apparent attempt to redeem his public image. Perhaps the soundtrack for Morrison’s biography could be the Animals song Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood!
Believe it or not, these diverse and seemingly dissimilar situations have something in common. While I’m neither qualified nor well-enough informed to make pronouncements or judgements on any of these matters, and I certainly wouldn’t deign to posit solutions to what are complex and delicate situations, I do recognise a common underlying tension that is worth identifying.
Perhaps the starkest example of this tension was evident during the first year of the COVID pandemic in 2020. When social distancing and self-isolation rules were first introduced there was a vehement backlash from some who complained that they didn’t need to self-isolate or keep social distancing or stop eating out because they were in a very low-risk category and the chance of them catching the virus was so low that they didn’t need to stay home. And besides, even if they did get it the symptoms would be mild and the impact negligible, so why should they worry? Interestingly, that attitude has morphed in more recent times into a ‘sovereign citizen’ movement that champions the rights of the individual and is beginning to have an impact on Australian politics.[1]
Which points us to one of the eternal tensions in social ethics, and what I think is a common factor in the situations identified above: the tension between individual rights and community good. Does the health and wellbeing of a community outweigh the individual rights of its members? Or do the rights of one sector of the community carry more weight than the rights of another?
This is not a new tension. In fact it is an ancient debate that was at the heart of one of Jesus’ most famous stories. The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) is a brilliant and provocative reference to the long-standing tension in Jewish tradition between the holiness code (after Shammai) and the compassion code (after Hillel). Confronted with the man dying on the side of the road, the passerby can ask two questions: either ‘What will happen to me if I help him?’ (holiness code) or ‘What will happen to him if I don’t?’ (compassion code). The first travellers (the priest and the Levite) considered the first question and ‘passed by on the other side’. The Samaritan responds to the second question and, as a result, has been forever labelled ‘good’!
In April, the Uniting Church Assembly Standing Committee released a statement on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, calling for compassion to guide all parties in their quest for justice. Without doubt, compassion would be a sound platform from which we might negotiate a way through so many of the socio-political tensions that we face, not just international conflicts but matters such as climate change, domestic and other violence, economic policy, housing policy, tax policy, reconciliation with our First Peoples and so much more.
Do we make our response to these matters on the basis of what’s best or safest for me, or on the basis of what’s best or safest for others? Or for our local community? Or for our nation? Or for the world? Or for the earth? Admittedly, the compassionate response may cost us personally: it may require us to give up something (security, wealth, personal freedoms, etc.) for the sake of the wellbeing of the other, and that is not an easy or simple choice. But the story of the Good Samaritan, and indeed the life of Jesus, suggest that compassion is a risk worth taking.
David Brooker
17th May 2024
[1] See Anti-vax group My Place is pushing to ‘take control of council decisions’ ABC, 4th April 2023
OldSoul.blog 
Leave a comment