When you say, “I want to make the world a better place,” all I hear is, “I want to make the world more like me.” How the hell do you know what’s better for the world? How could you possibly make the world better?
How inclusive is your ethical structure?
Can you define right and wrong, good and bad?
So you have an inherent gift of knowing all that’s good and all that’s bad, and you’re able to impress that gift upon others?
And you’re certain that the imposition of your morality upon the world causes no disruption or interference?
Have you ever considered that pain and suffering may lead us toward greater truths?
So, when imposing your concept of what’s good upon someone, saving them from from your idea of what’s bad, couldn’t you be robbing them of growth?
Is nature not filled up with painful realities?
Five cheetahs pick off a baby gazelle as they all take turns tearing their claws through her neck, and they give the dying calf to their young as a lesson in hunting, and all these little tiny cheetahs are just gnawing at the baby gazelle for hours as she slowly bleeds out. Is that wrong or right or good or bad?
How do you know animals don't know right from wrong if you have no clear definition of right and wrong?
And humans are different how?
Cognition isn't a part of daily life for any other species but ours?
What's the difference between consciousness and cognitive thought then?
So it didn't take consciousness or cognition to coordinate and calculate and take down that gazelle?
And instinct is what more than an innate will to live, will to power, and is cognition not simply a heightened reflex evolved upon by that same will to power? Wherein lies the morality?
OK so humans know right from wrong and animals don’t know the difference, yet who carried out the Holocaust? Where are the red ants enslaving black ants, kamikaze birds and dolphin genocides?
Sentience is the key to morality? Yet only sentient species seem to carry out these great atrocities, am I right?
How inclusive is your ethical structure? Should we save all the horses while factory farming all the pigs? Save all the bluebirds and factory farm all the chickens? Kill all the snakes and spiders and save all the cats and dogs?
Yes, but don’t you think a man willing to end his own life by flying a plane into a ship or a building has his own ethics? Does not the will to end one’s own life require a great ideal, a sense of acting in the right, a sense of certainty in the fortification of one’s own ethical structure?
No, my point is, we have no idea what wrong or right is, so we have no means of making the world “better,” and we certainly have no right imposing our ideals and ethics upon others, do we?
It also frees us, by the way, not to feel guilty for who we are, what we have or where we’re stationed in life. So many liberals live in cycles of self-hatred and pity for others, disguised as compassion and sympathy, comparing themselves to so-called “less fortunate” people in order to feel bad about feeling bad about being well-off. We’re all fortunate and unfortunate. It’s becoming a paradigm to say, “I shouldn’t complain because I’m a straight, white person,” as though we understand the comparison.
No, you shouldn’t complain because it’s not useful, it’s not proactive, and complaining has absolutely no value whatsoever. If you feel bad for victims of hate or poverty or whatever else, first thing you have to realize is no one is empowered by pity. Neither pity nor victimhood ever helped anyone.
If you spent some time trying to know yourself, who’s actually perceiving this, and you find the truly inclusive nature of self, maybe good and bad wouldn’t be such an issue. There should be no conclusion, for there is nothing to conclude. Do good by doing whatever is good in the moment. Talking about good things compared to bad things isn’t a good thing.
Funny, Aristotle wrote like ten books on ethics, and he never came to any sort of conclusion. At least, I never read a convincing argument for what is good and what is bad. Yet every self-appointed liberal I meet has a conclusive ideology with a long list of rights and wrongs. The right is even easier. Their entire ethical structure is rooted in their very particular interpretation of The Bible, those random scrolls Constantine compiled millennia ago. Every generation has a totally different conclusion, and every person seems to know their conclusion is the right one. As soon as there’s a conclusion, you want to start imposing it upon everyone.
No, I’m asking you how inclusive is your ethical structure? Do you include the dolphins but not the fish?
Let’s pretend there’s an impending apocalypse, and we’re able to save every species from earth, and we all got onboard a great white ark and sailed the aether, but we accidentally destroyed 3 neighboring galaxies containing millions of solar systems. Would that be good, bad, right or wrong?
What if every solar system we accidentally destroyed had intelligent life? Would you save earthlings even if it meant destroying trillions of species in multiple neighboring galaxies?
So, how inclusive is your ethical structure?
Oh, it’s simple for you when it’s about you, but the ideology you’re propagating isn’t just about you is it?
OK then, what is “being a good mother”? Isn’t it actually just a selfish desire to propagate your own selfish genes?
Would you save your child if the entire schoolhouse was on fire?
Okay, suppose you’re stuck in a cave with your baby and another baby, and there’s no food and you have to breast feed this baby. You’re going to let the other kid starve, right? Might it actually be more ethical to just suffocate the second baby so as not to prolong its suffering?
How inclusive is your ethical structure? How big is your self? Family? Community? Society? Nation? Religion? Race? Species? Animal kingdom? Earthly domain? Earth? Solar system? Galaxy? Universe? Multiverse?! Where do you draw your dumb line?
As soon as one person steps on your toes, you're ready to call them the bad guys. Gossip begins the propaganda, and you're unaware of your own impending doom. You've drawn a line in the sand, and it's eroded before you let yourself ever look back. It goes against everything you believe in, but you've surrounded yourself with people who you think believe the same thing as you think you do. Not once have you asked yourself where the lines of morality are drawn. Not once have you considered how or where that line is haphazardly drawn or how ambiguous the ethics of ambiguity truly are. The nature of humanity’s ethics is that they’ve changed many times since we began discussing them. It’s probably illegal for women to chew gum somewhere now, and in the neighboring village it’s still legal for women to chew gum, but it’s become illegal to slaughter medium-sized dogs on Sundays.
How inclusive is your ethical structure? Where's the line? Are you consciously aware that you're killing something with every step you take? You just killed something. Then, there you did it again. The bacteria in your mouth is dying every time you talk, because your hippie breath is naturally destroying it. Your breath’s too natural for the artificial ideology coming out your face hole. I know, I want to save the parasites too, especially the medium-sized parasites that got strung up with that dog last Sunday. Did you hear about the new dog law? Let us pray so that their spirits go to the medium-sized star god Nebulus Rectumsex where Jerry Garcia sings with hippie breath parasites for all eternity.
Well, you ought to be laughing. A spoonful of sugar helps the absurdity go down your bacteria hole. I don’t define self by what self consumes or what self believes or what self sexualizes, and I don’t know what’s wrong or what’s right, and I don’t profess or preach or proclaim or propagate anything except that I Am. At the very least, I hope that people who preach, proclaim, profess and propagate these colossal ideologies have asked themselves the big questions.
Yeah, well, I clearly take it too far sometimes. That’s one side of morality. Too much is my nature. The macro ethic is my means. Too much satire towards that which takes too much offense, which is never quite enough, exemplifies authenticity if only minutely hyperbolic for the sake of mirroring the drama and trauma of life.
I had only hoped to inspire conscientiousness of the innate hypocrisy in presuming right and wrong. Just as religion imposes its false ideals disguised as morality, and corruption in politics imposes its false ideals disguised as morality, the impact of those false ideals are rampant among all whom aren’t vigilantly aware. Majority of the world agrees that Hitler was corrupt and terrible, yet we don’t see the corruption and terror within ourselves. We choose not to face our own utter confusion and instead take refuge with the camaraderie of those whom self-define by the same false ideologies as we do, others whom live in the same brand of confusion as us, and we point to the “other” just as Hitler did. “The illustrious they” are always to blame. We design our lives around the reinforcement of the false concepts which propagate the false conclusions that we are right and they are wrong.
All I’m saying is, only the fool falls for concepts. Morality is just another concept. The fool latches on to the false conclusion without ever truly asking the questions. Authenticity is within the asking not the answering, right? Right?! Am I right or am I wrong?