A soft heart, too soft to break the ground and kill the worms, will starve a family. A father, who will not train the strength of his son, dooms him to the abuse of the wicked.Â
Who is crueler- one who cages his foes, perpetually irking and reminding him of his woes, or one who banishes him to seek and find a new and better life?
Perhaps hope is the cruelest of all. While even the dimmest light shines on, we rebel. Darkness, a resignation to the enemy power, forces the neck to turn to passageways previously ignored while rebellion is still a breathing possibility. But rebellion only brought stiff necks to the guillotine anyway.
One must caress or else destroy the will of the rebels. Either give them their demands, or squash them. This is good for the rulers and good for the subjects.
What will be of justice? I do not know. But perhaps a broken world is fixed better with happiness for all parties than with justice for none.Â
In my Great-Grandfather's book of ethics, he quotes a sage saying that it is better to make harmony between two than to judge; one who makes harmony between two people will receive their gratitude. One who judges acquires a foe.Â
But what if harmony is impossible? The fact is that no compromise can be reached. If so, what is needed is the full resignation of the oppressed, so that he may wake up tomorrow with hopes of a better future instead of a heart boiling with resentfulness.Â
And yet one wonders if this can come to pass, knowing that men have a strong memory for injury, and wives an even stronger one for the injuries of their men.
Who will dare throw out the harsh mistress of justness for the fair maiden of happiness?Â
