People need to understand that good and bad are not constant. I'm not sure if that makes sense or if any of this will but I'm just trying to lay out my thoughts. The concepts of good and bad only exist as adjectives relative to something else. Example: Superman is good right? Wrong. Superman is good to us. Good to all of the citizens. Good to his parents. It all has to do with perspective. What about Lex Luther? From Lex Luther's perspective Superman is bad. These thoughts have been going through my mind a lot lately. I hate when people think that something can always be bad or good. Or when people think that just because something sounds bad or that they have been taught that something is bad that its actually bad. That's the thing with weed. So many people are saying and have said that weed is bad and so people just believe it. They don't think for themselves. They just absorb information and assume its validity. Idk I think I went off subject a little bit. Please share your thoughts. Thanks dude.
Very clearly laid out idea. There should be no moral absolutes. If we are truly individual, then one man's good will always be another man's bad, and who is to say what each of us should feel about any given thing? All that matters, as I see it, is that we do whatever we feel to be right at the time, while allowing everyone else to do the same. If some conflict arises out of what I feel is right over what you do, and what I do causes you harm, loss, etc, then we attend some form of arbitration where each side puts forward why they feel they are right, having to abide by the decision of those deemed more learned in these matters. But, as long as nobody suffers harm by what I do, then what I do is of no business or concern of anyone else.
The thing is that we live with our ego, always at odds with each other because we consider ourselves different, thus every single view on morality you will see in human society will be subjective, based on the perspective of a human being. But human beings are incredible, in that they are able top assume a point of view that is not of their own, hence we can empathize with a victim of crime or even a pirate or something. I think when you transcend ego completely and find ultimate truth and achieve enlightenment, you can truly see the objective morality that encompasses existence as a whole. Death is not bad, neither is life good, but you can see how both can be considered as either through millions of different perspectives, this is what i believe a goal should be for every man searching true enlightenment.
It is because we consider ourselves different that we ensure we emphasise the ego over everything else. But this is an illusion, for we are not different at all. The perception of difference creates the feeling of separation, and it this that stops us from seeing the truth.
good and bad are nothing but illusions that survive through the minds judgement relative to another thing. As the two brilliant posters above have reasoned there is nothing that's good or bad its an artificial creation of the mind in attempt to suppress the reality of something on an sub-conscious state instead of coming to terms with the truth on a conscious level and accepting the truth as it is; you will now be taking the red-pill despite how uncomfortable it can be to your mind.
We are brought with social values and expectations that are professionals at tagging some things as "good" and others as "bad". Considering how numerous simple-minded individuals are, it isn't surprising that they are abusively considered as absolutes. I think it's Socrates who said that no one does bad things voluntarily. Hence when you do something you think it's the "good"est option for YOU.
Just to challenge you a bit, if you dont mind... Would you say torture or rape or mind control is bad? I suppose what i am essentially asking, are you saying there is no good/bad right/wrong or that people often apply the terms where they dont belong? Superman killing a "bad guy" to save a "good guy", is that right or wrong or morally indifferent or completely meaningless. If we are not individuals then everything just "is", there is no morality. If we are individuals then do we have rights? Do you have the right to life? Hope we can spark a good discussion, great post. Cheers!
Things are only good or bad in the moment they appear to be so. Everything is meaningless until we give meaning to it. So while there are things that are good and bad for most people, too many people apply these terms where they don't belong, thus affecting what is meant to be realised by the individual experiencing it when it is. We are individuals, and all have the right to do whatever we want in this life, while at the same time respecting other people's right to do the same. We have a right to life as they do. To live well, be well, live, love, enjoy, whatever, and we have a right to all these things, as long as what we do doesn't directly stop another from doing the same. What we don't have a right to do is tell another what they can and can't do, especially if it doesn't have any impact on anyone else.
The OP hasnt responded but you seem civil so i will engage with you! So you are saying we have individual rights such as life, but you also say everything is meaningless until we give it meaning. Do we have a right to life inherently or just because we say we have a right to life? A classic example would be Nazi Germany who decided Jews had no right to life, were they wrong? Tricky subject but very interesting.
Anyone alive has a right to stay that way, and of course the Nazi's were not right to decide to kill the Jews. Not a tricky subject at all.
Even that is subjective. What one person sees as winning, another won't, and vice versa. This reminds me of King Pyrrhus.
Sorry for taking a while. What I think is that it really doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks is good or bad. Only what you think should affect you. We try to make sense of this by making laws based on what the largest group of similar people think. Majority rules. Edit: We have I take a few steps back to decide what we think is good or bad. Think about it. In a parallel universe our history could have been altered and rape could be completely normal or even encouraged. Take another step back and the balance of chemicals in your brain affects what you do everyday and what you decide is good and bad. I'm not sure if I'm making sense. Please tell me if you understand haha Thanks dude
Esseff - Im not sure i follow you but your post was pretty short. This is a philosophical topic so i was expecting a bit more of a philosophical answer, would you dont mind trotting that out a bit more? OP - Im not sure the parallel universe idea does anything to effect the morality of the universe we know exists. Its really tricky to speculate about the nature of a universe that is itself speculative. And you say the majority rules, then the question i asked esseff i now ask you but slightly altered. If Nazi Germany won WW2 and conquered the world, would the right of Jews to life still apply even though the majority support their eradication? Thanks for the discussion you two.
I'm not sure. First of all I think it would have been extremely hard to convince the entire world that Jews were so bad that they needed to be eradicated. Also the eradication of Jews was hidden from the public until the end of the war so only a small group of people knew that Jew were being killed. If the nazis had won the war I'm sure early human rights activists would have faught to keep the Jews alive. I mean the entire world was extremely shocked when they found out about the concentration camps. But then hitler probably would have done everything he could to suppress those against him. But hitler didn't actually hate Jews. His "hating Jews" was just a tool he used to win his election and eventually take over the world. So maybe once he took over the world or whatever he wouldn't really care about the Jew that much. I don't know that much about history but that's just what I think.
Sometimes the answer you get is the answer you get. Don't know what else I can say to make what I said clearer.
Esseff - well i specifically asked if there is an inherent right to life or an asserted right to life basically. Seems you might lean to the latter?
Esseff - well i specifically asked if there is an inherent right to life or an asserted right to life basically. Seems you might lean to the latter?
In many ways life is sacred, and not to be taken so trivially as some do. But also, life is just a tiny moment in the history of our planet, and we know there are billions of us here right now, perhaps too many to sustain everyone, especially in the way we divide up our resources so unfairly. For the fatalist's, life isn't so important, as what will be will be, and for those who believe in reincarnation, they've been here before and will be again, so an individual life is also not so important per se. Yet, having said all that, from the perspective of the consciousness experiencing physical life, it has great meaning, and while no life has to last as long as it possibly can (medicine has a thing or two still to learn about what real life is), what matters is how you live and whether someone else is attempting to interfere with that.