Good or evil!
I think that good and evil are perceptions. I don't believe
in universal moral absolutes.
I define evil, as very profound immorality. Of course,
people will have different ideas about what falls under the evil category, but
I think acts which are intended to cause the intense suffering of living
creatures are a good example. Evil is just a highly egoistic evolutionary strategy that harms other individuals.
It feels like we have in almost inherited understanding of
what evil is. We know it when we see it even if no one has talked to us about
it before.
Evil is something that goes against your conscience. The
conscience is pure when you are born but then it slowly becomes corrupt when
you become an adult. Your conscience makes you feel guilty, and that's how you
know what is evil.Evil is just a biologically and socially conditioned response. It's nothing but a cloud of molecular interactions in your brain.
Existential good and evil only makes sense if there is a mind above us all.
It seems a lot of "evil" evokes no negative
response at all depending on who we are dealing with.
From evolutionary perspective, this basic perception of
"good" and "evil" precedes religion, and some religions are
based on it. There is no need to create any deity to understand what is good or evil. After that it can get more complicated, because what is altruistic to a group can be egoistic to others, so this model explains the world very well, much better than any fairy tales with "sin" involved.
There seems to be a law of human nature which are manners
many expect the other to know automatically. If I shove someone I expect that
person to be upset but if I say ‘excuse me please; I hope they'd let me by.
Evil actions manipulate these manners for a desired response
and expect a price for their trouble if it doesn't work out favourably. Good
actions expect a desired response and get offended if it doesn't work out for
their trouble.
There's no devil made me do it or God is blessing me its
habits of practice that shape our thinking and our responses according to the
law of human nature. Freewill allows us to change our habits and alter the
responses hopefully favourably.
You see morality is created by people, not by any god and is
therefore intended to serve humans. True morality in my opinion, should be
based on consequential. In other words moral acts should be based on the
results they produce, i.e. do they create good or bad consequences?
Of course
this can be difficult to carry through at times, because we cannot always be
sure of our good intentions.
There is also deontological morality which is duty
or rule based and involves people acting the right way because it's the right
thing to do rather than acting based on consequences and can be seen much like
the laws of any given generation of people although morality implies, instead
of a societal interpretation of right and wrong, an individualistic perspective
in accordance with better or worse ways of determining our actions in any given
circumstance.
I tend to find the consequential morality as being the most
beneficial for evolving beings. As people grow spiritually they may embrace
truth, beauty and goodness regardless of the consequences which may have good
or bad consequences depending on the mental stability and level of distortion
embraced by that particular being. We must embrace a perspective wholly unified in science and philosophy in order to maintain a healthy and balanced personality dedicated to serving a God of love, showing mercy and compassion for all fellow beings.
So how do you know what these absolute morals are?
My answer is by my own moral standards, based on empathy, reason and logic, situational judging what is the best moral decision.
So from here you can see what type of a person we are dealing with by their action.
And that is the only objective: To find the best possible
moral solution for any given situation that requires moral actions or
decisions!
I am, as I stated above consequentiality.And if you now say:
Why should your morals then be binding for me...?
They aren't, but if we disagree on anything, then we would have to discuss it, and either I convince you, or you convince me with arguments, or we have to find a compromise, or we go on disagreeing.
But just because you claim to have some sort of absolute objective morality, I will not just accept your opinion!
Morality has zero relevance or meaning absent moral agents e.g. humans, so thinking there's some universal or independent morality seems pointless.
Morality is more or less as we define it.
Some may claim that morality then becomes relative, and in a way it does, however, if its application is based on a reasoned framework and applied consistently in relevant contexts, then you can essentially have an objective morality IN the contexts that matter.
Of course, it depends on what moral principles we deem important and how we construct and apply whatever framework we choose to employ - Iow morality is as objective or as relative as we make it.
Ignorance always has to be factored into all things, be it individuals, societies, and political organizations.
Ideals are goals and will begin as personal expressions and then manifest in the rules and regulations albeit in a watered down, lowest common denominator fashion.
Moral principles and laws are derived from human motivations.
It begins with the individual and spreads through society, hopefully leading to a better world in which we can all live peacefully and enjoy abundant life.
ps/smoh
