Law of reaction and consequence.

[Equilibrium]

I’ve seen a great deal of threads dealing with the subject of morality or ethics on this website where many have stated that such articulations are insane,absurd, hypocritical,pretentious and completely unfounded.

I’m likely to agree with such perceptions and viewpoints in considerance that alot of beliefs centering around the two beliefs of morality or ethics can very well be equated with madness having a direct correlation with cultural superstitions however if we understand that every action has a reaction it very well can be said that there is a bit of logic in the implementation of morals.

Perhaps in order to understand morality or ethics especially for those who are nihilists we must understand the subject purely as emotional reactionism to relative threats and forms of existential danger.

Is it purely a logical reaction completely empirical in nature? Not at all just like people themselves are not completely logical or empirical in nature but nonetheless it still serves a reactional purpose nonetheless even though it leads to utter contradiction a great deal of the time.

The imperfect nature of man is one of wild superstitions, beliefs and unfounded ideologies from which morality or ethics derives from yet nonetheless reactionism is the key instrument of such dispositions which will probally remain in our species existence indefinately no matter what our opinions may be.

In order to make a short observance of morality or ethics I would describe it as a imperfect reactionism constructed by our species which is equally imperfect.

[Phil8659]

If I had a thing, and could not say what the thing was, could I say what behavior it was suppose to exhibit?

I am rather stupid, so I say no.

However, if I had a toaster and I knew it was suppose to make toast, I could judge its behavior at breakfast. Simple.

Thirdly, if I was told that a thing was a toaster, and I was told what a toaster was suppose to do, but I myself was a chimpanzee, well, the explanation would be pointless, and I would have a new toy to toss around.

Now a foundation of psychology that goes unrecognized today is that it is capable of using logical constructs only if those constructs are part of its biological make up. Most people assume that because it can speak, it can reason. This is wholly false, ask any parrot.

And so, if I, currently dropping my chimp outfit were to write about ethics and morals, I would first do so in reference to what a man was, I would define him. I could define him in a metaphor, such as a beast with seven eyes and seven horns–meaning seven areas of perception and seven means of protecting his life, human will.

Or if I were want to be more mundane, I would say,

A human body life system is that human body system which must acquire something from the environment, process that which it has acquired for a product that sustains and promotes human life.

Or simply we must consume to live.

What is that human body system which must acquire the experiences in life such that it may abstract forms to human expression called will, such that that will sustains and promotes the life of the body? Some call it reason. Some say that the function of the mind determines the output of the hand, or again, . . . . well. It becomes then a matter of truth in accordance with reality what consitutes ethical and moral behavior–in reference to what sustains and promotes human life.