There is an undeniable paradox within each of us between what we perceive as honest in our actions and our belief that we are acting justly.
Whether through conscious actions or silent biases, we often act out of a sense of duty, to affirm what seems right and proper to us at that particular moment.
HHow many times have we heard comments like “You did the right thing” or “It was the right thing to do” to justify moments in life that seemed both necessary and unfair to us, and what’s more, usually end up proving just how wrong we were? Yet, despite the discomfort these emotions can cause, these are standard phrases that serve as a salve for our doubts, since we often apply our sense to be, based on what we deem fair and honest toward ourselves.
Quite often, we act based on what seems most appropriate in the moment and according to a sense of right and wrong that is generally instilled in us during childhood, to determine what is good and right to do and not to do. These everyday practices, frequently associated with our good manners, politeness, demeanor, and way of expressing ourselves, form a common thread of what we consider normal, and any unjustified deviation from this can result in a sense of injustice.
The fragility of the line begins in the tiny gap between the intentions that arise from the desire to be fair and the desire to be honest.
Accuracy is generally defined as a quality that refers to the perfection of a thing or a situation, without any error or lapse in judgment. Honesty, on the other hand, lies in the actions of those who act with integrity and loyalty to adhere to moral principles, respect for others, and the accepted norms of society.
Both represent extremes of conformity, which, until proven otherwise, exist only in an abstract theory where one would be able to proclaim oneself just and honest (according to frameworks that have never defined the scope or extent within which one might consider oneself entirely just and honest). This is why what seems just to some people is completely inaccurate and irrelevant to others, since the form of justice established by each individual depends on the height at which they have set their bar for perfection as well as their level of tolerance in achieving that goal.
At our level, what is right is also difficult to sustain due to the instability of the self’s constant evolution, as it chooses or decides to grow through the different stages of our lives. What was right in our childhood may not be right as we enter adulthood, nor as we move beyond it.
In the eyes of others, actions taken “of one’s own free will,” “in my honor” and “by right” are merely subterfuges to conceal the excesses of our ego, which has proclaimed the extent of its righteousness. Conversely, it is certain that anyone who acts for the good (of all) considers themselves to be working with full awareness of their power to spread their good intentions. It is within this notion of the will to act for the good that these two principles often clash. What is fundamentally just is rarely applied through entirely honest practices, just as what is fundamentally honest never reaches a threshold of indisputable perfection, for that would amount to confining the immensity of excellence within principles as strict as a double-locked cage—hence the commonplace notion that nothing and no one is perfect.
Human history has shown that dishonest actions carried out “for the common good” by controversial leaders are the antithesis of justice, for they have drawn upon the dubious excesses of men consumed by their own excesses, incapable of recognizing the point at which they have lost control over the world’s universal knowledge.
Thus, it is only fair and honest to acknowledge that nothing defines them more than our own limitations in understanding them. There is neither beginning nor end to the intention to be fair and honest, for if we question the value of these qualities, it is because we have lost sight of their meaning and are on our way to regaining that thread…