Of Cost and Value

Bon nuit...

No Cecilyisms or amusing photos today...just a brief thought...well, actually, an old thought "comin' around again" [mentally insert Carly Simon song as audiotrack].

Many years ago, I listened and understood as someone explained that: one of the ways value is acknowledged and/or imputed to someone or something is when retribution is required. In other words, something is intrinsically valuable, but we live in a fallen world and that value may not be universally recognized. Thus, when the Thing of Value is compromised, damaged, or destroyed, justice requires that a penalty be levied.

This is the principle at stake when capital sentences are handed down; in a murder case, a human life was forfeited by human means; and one of the ways its value is confirmed and the evil of the deed confirmed is by the requirement that the debt be paid...either by 'a life for a life', or a protracted incarceration. [In fact, I am no etymologist but I can't help but wonder whether the 'car' part of incarceration is derived from a Latin root meaning 'flesh'; as in 'incarnation'--which, as we know, means to take on earthly form or flesh; or 'incarnadine' -- which refers to the color of flesh...OK, I digress.]

Obviously, Christ's redemption of us hangs on the truth of this principle and the fact that God required a penalty for our sin.

Additionally, of course, there is the undeniable and desirable deterrent factor attached to penalties: doing this bad thing leads to that unwelcome consequence.

BUT, here is my point. And I am sure it neither original nor profound; the thought occurs that this same principle of value being tied to cost is true in other contexts, as well.

Let's take that elusive commodity: Trust. Many's the parent who has listened as the errant teenager whines "don't you trust me?" Such a question assumes that trust is an entitlement. And who would dare to rescind it? Until, that is, their own trust is betrayed by someone else. And many are the times this parent has had to flip on the MomVoice Recorder and explain...'no, I no longer trust you with X because of the way you betrayed that trust by doing Y. No, it's not an automatic 'reload.' You have to EARN my trust back.'

Earn? Like in, having to exert oneself in order to secure something of value? Now you're catching on...

And, I think, the converse is true, or at least in a way I hadn't thought of before. If you just dole out trust willy-nilly, regardless of the context of characterization of the 'trustee', you cheapen it...and nullify it. Maybe it isn't even trust at all...maybe what you're extending is mere license...and that is a very different thing...

I'm thinking trust can't really be trust if it is not valued by the 'truster'. In fact, it seems axiomatic...if someone wants your trust, they must consider it of some value, or they wouldn't want it in the first place...

Lesson: Appreciate the value of the trust you accord to others, and the trust they extend to you. Otherwise, you may find yourself feeling like the hapless pearl owner who cast his treasure before swine...