CASTING STONES: Pastor Bugingo's actions reflect human values. Forgive him.

There's a wholly misguided practice in society of judging people against some scale of morality. I find the practice misguided because it suggests that people are moral or should be moral.

Human activity is influenced by desires and human beings usually don't care whether they inflict pain or loss to others in the effort to yield to those desires.

Bertrand Russell, in his Nobel Lecture, What Desires Are Politically Important, revealed:

"There was a Renaissance Italian princeling who was asked by the priest on his deathbed if he had anything to repent of. "Yes", he said, "there is one thing. On one occasion I had a visit from the Emperor and the Pope simultaneously. I took them to the top of my tower to see the view, and I neglected the opportunity to throw them both down, which would have given me immortal fame."

The princeling didn't care whether his desire to achieve immortal fame would cause death to the Pope and Emperor and emotional pain to their followers, lovers and relatives.

Similarly, in the effort to have a romantic relationship with Suzan Makula, Bugingo doesn't care whether he inflicts emotional pain to his main wife and children. He doesn't care whether he defies Christian values and sets a bad example to his followers.

One's circumstances, availability and severity of consequences for an action against one determine whether one will behave morally or otherwise. If one knows that the punishment for theft is death, one will be hesitant to steal.

For a "pastor" like Bugingo to have two wives simultaneously is against Christian values and therefore unethical. When Bugingo sought divorce in vain, he was tempted to proceed with his romantic relationship with Suzan Makula because as far as he saw, there were no significant consequences for his action.

The most dreaded and easily thinkable consequence would be losing his flock but apparently, the flock is in full support of its leader because he "represents" the Almighty -- according to his flock, I think, if the Almighty is unquestionable, his "representatives" like Bugingo should share the immunity.

Is also the flock so gullible that Bugingo was tempted to go against Christian values? Did he reckon that he will find a way of making them see morality in his action like he has always convinced them on many things since the days of Bat Valley?

Well, after Male Mabiriizi posing a serious legal consequence, Bugingo has been forced to deny Suzan Makula. Probably, if Bugingo had foreseen the legal action from Mabiriizi, he would've been hesitant to go into a customary marriage.

Dishonesty is also another immoral act but because the circumstances dictate that Bugingo can be sentenced to prison for disrespecting legal marriage with Teddy Bugingo, he has been forced to lie. Shouldn't we then judge people against their circumstances rather than against some scale of morality?

Stealing is immoral, punishable by law and on a bad day, a mob can lynch a culprit of theft but a starving person can risk stealing because there's a high probability that they can survive death in the attempt to steal but there are completely no chances of surviving starvation.

Further on circumstances' influence on our actions, a poor man with a mother or child on a sickbed and without morally acceptable means to accessing funds to finance the medical bills might find it irresistible to steal.

I conclude that there's immorality prompted by the need to survive and immorality prompted by insatiable human desires such as sexual desire, greed, rivalry, vanity, love for power etc. and that all people are potential thieves, prostitutes, liars, murderers etc.

The only difference lies in the thresholds beyond or below which people choose to embrace immorality. For instance; one man may choose to steal on his second day of starvation, another on his first day and some other man just at the prospect of starvation.