But who says peace is the right way, why not hate If someone prefers?
Iron Dog asks:
Simply because we’ve forgotten what life means and being suggestible as we are we need others that, for some reason we believe in, to tell us how to think.
At one time in ancient history there existed various tribes that lacking education believed in the value of the interactive processes of life and developed a respect for the process of life itself. They cannot be held responsible since they lacked contemporary education. But the result was that they valued the process more than the result. The animal that was killed for food was honored as part of the cyclical life process for example rather than treated as the nullity we’ve grown accustomed to consider it with its value confined to its service to our stomachs since education has revealed to us our self importance independent of everything else.
Ethics became a compromise for the gradual loss of the respect for the cyclical interactive process of life itself and anarchy as its alternative.It dealt with the "results"of behavior rather than behavior in the larger context of the greater process of life.
Ethics then gradually became defined by experts as codes of behavior for the “other guy.” Naturally the experts of superior intellect do not need to be burdened with human consideration. Their expertise is sufficient to decide who it is right to kill in the pursuit of unconditional love.
So in practice ethics have become defined as and limited to the normal results of human interaction on sunny days and calm moonlit nights when ones bills are paid six months in advance.
But the real question for me is what the difference would make if we regained the lost respect for the cyclical process of life itself. Would this effect our ethics?
Take the question of abortion for example. During these times we look at it as a result separated and distinct from a larger more valuable process of the entire cycle of life. With this attitude it is easy and justifiable to kill. However, if the cycle of life that extends from conception to death and possibly its repetition were respected and part of the respect would be the inner knowing of the value of this respect from the perspective of karma, there would be less abortions. The reason of course is that the inner psychology of the sex act itself and its value is completely unknown and separated from conception in the minds of the young mostly because the adults as a whole are completely oblivious of anything to pass along. Naturally if sex were respected not from the point of view of ethics but from the awareness of life and respect for its processes in which the sex energies engage as realistically meaningful, there would be less unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Of course with the "experts"stressing self importance so strongly, such realistic appraisal will have to remain buried with the “ignorant” ancients so it leaves us with this selective ethics that allows us to condemn a helpless person to death by agonizing dehydration to preserve politically correct thought.
The one saving grace though is that no one can insult us by saying we are not educated.
Sorry nick , that was a printing error. It should have said “if life means nothing”
I already have above previously bob?
History.
So we have ethics only because of history? Why should anyone consent to what history thinks if we are free?
Iron Dog, the answer to your question in which you are not clearly seeing is in one of my previous posts on this thread.
I’ll post it once more, Peace according to religion is the right way. Hate is not the right way according to religion. Religion has always been the majority of society politically, which in the proccess makes the society governed Religiously. Religion Promotes peace because it allows religion to control more people. The religion can’t control anyone if the people are dead.
This has answered your question to the fullest if you can’t understand this, then please, go out and kill elderly people and have a visit to one of out well known “pound me in the ass” federal prisons, because I’m sure they would be more than willing to explain it in there terms as to why you don’t want to kill people. Bubba from the lower floors locked up by chains sure is cravin for the bacon and would love to get his hands on your ass so please have a go for it if you don’t seem to understand it.
What I mean is what is actually stopping someone from killing on a whim?
So far all you have said is because religion says so, and we should not because the majority expects it.
Supossing someone lives as an individual and chooses to kill , yes he may go to jail. But that only shows that religion in society is in control as you say. You still have,nt answered why it is ethically wrong to kill someone.
Ethics are based upon individual persons. Should you truely want to kill someone for in your mind the good of the world then Go for it if you believe it to be true. But don’t stop for a second if you believe the world wont against you and kill you or place you in jail. Thats just how the world goes. With every Action there is an Equal and opposite reaction.
So you are saying it is not truly wrong to kill someone who seems innocent if one chooses to do so, as long as he aint caught?
So anything goes as long as , if you are doing something illegal you are not caught?
Ethics aren’t about right or wrong, morals are about right or wrong, right?
Morals or Good and Evil are based on individual circumstances. Like someone said earlier,
Good is what makes society better. (Economically, living standards, peaceful)
Bad is what makes society worse. (Disease, Killing, etc etc)
Now as to whether you personally feel killing somone is good for the society well… thats up to you. But as they say, “the Needs of the Many outway the needs of the Few” which would go in this case as Your personal needs to kill someone are outweighed by the Masses view on killing.
So in conclusion. We may kill if we like, as long as we are not found out.
No I said its a personal decision in which you choose it to be Good or Evil. If you believe it to be Good to kill people then it is good to you, but not neccesarily good for the masses. You have to make the determination as to whether killing would be Good or Bad for the majority rather than personally.
This brings me to my next point
Since it is not wrong to kill {explained above previously}, then perhaps you should not make such a big fuss if someone kills one of your family or friends?
Since we are beasts that experience only what we think is emotion , but is actually nothing more than a selfish genetic trait. No god, no genuine altruism, no real purpose, only life, survival , and death.
Why? stuff the majority you could say.
If life means nothing, then neither do mans silly views based on his own inadequacies. The majority mean nothing but a lumpen mass of confused animals one could argue.
Yes but only the good and bad as described by an animal that has no real purpose. Therefore all should be free to live as they like, and if some like war and killing, they should not be held back by mob mentality no?
The world should be full of people living as they like. Suppose someone enjoys sniping at pensioners on a sunday, before going for a few beers and then crippling some asians for fun. Suppose this is what he loves doing.
Who are the majority to say he cannot do this? When they themselves have only ever made up laws that suit them. Not everyone needs to follow these laws. Especially if life means nothing. That would mean that ethics were only an idea, not a compulsory.
Yes well should you kill someones family member you take the responsibility in that they would mroe than likely come for you.
Or I should say, “The Majority will stuff you” (Whether he be named bubba or they just put you in jail or kill you)
Your taking the wrong perspective on things and not using common sense in knowing that the majority has favor over you… If the majority thought it right to just walk around and kill people then that would be the norm but ITS NOT. The majority says NO its NOT right to kill people, and should one do so then they will pay the price.
So mob rule is the right rule?
The majority say there is a god so there must be a god?