Theory: both the morality and evil side are wrong
Hi I want to share my opinion about these two different sides and i think they actually both wrong as far as naturalism and aliveness is concern. I think the morality as we know most of it isn’t real and some even use God with their "morality" to threat the "wrong" doers that they will be punished. I think the people who made these moralities are just afraid of evil people for being trampled and dominated so they use God to shield themselves against the evil people. What the evil people always after they declare it wrong and declare the good manners as right. Religion dogma is also in their side they said that the good doers will be rewarded and the evil doers will be punished. I don’t believe that this is God’s doing
Now why i think morality isn’t real:
The moralist wants people’s sons and daughters to be a good doer they also tells what is good and what is bad which I believe is wrong this is not a theory I know for sure that telling people what is good and what is bad is wrong. They do programming or conditioning on children as if they don’t want children to be they are they they’re being shaped from the start until he grows up. This leaves a possibility of bad consequences gradually as he grows up the children might be rebel because they are irritated from what is right, what is wrong, dullness, repeating conditioning and activity on school.
they will no longer be sensitive they will become selfish they might take the wrong track that’s why many children’s are evil in the early school life the teachers will tell what is wrong and what is right and the children’s will do good action but they are evil now in the mind in fact the bad child will only appear good if the teacher is present they simply imitate other good doers it wont be real.
But if the moralist let the grow children to be they are they wont be that evil and they will be real and this is the problem: the moment someone is real to himself the moralist might dislike him because there’s some part of his reality that seems wrong or evil and might misunderstand him as evil person and this is always certain if people are showing their real face the moralist cannot tell if the person is evil or not. I myself cannot tell the real face of a person but I know something for certain they are neither ordinary good doers nor immature evil people they are somewhat alive that sometimes even an atheist starts to believe the existence of soul.
For me it doesn’t matter if a person is a good doer or not they will always wrong unless they look on their self unprejudiced and not dependent to the morality that being thrown to them and whatever answers that they see that is the real answer.
Does the society cares about real face? It only needs people that function mechanically just dull good doers who have no glimpse of themselves and the skilled one. In fact nobody accepts people as they are only the other real ones.
Imo people should look on them selves and be real on it and serves as a catalyst to provoke others too. Not that gives teach others morality of what is good and what is right without even know real self
Now about the real face whoever’s being real they sometimes seem do evil things and do right and if people look into themselves and already heavily condition by morality they will feel guilt to their selves.
Examples why moralist sometimes sees real people as evil:
When a boy starts reach the age of 14 the maturity of falling in love with a girl or curiosity about the girl starts to develop off course the moralist and parents will interfere with this something dangerous might happened. The kids will be irritated I don’t know if this also happened in other countries but in Philippines parents always interfere. Even the parents don’t know their reality because they too is heavily conditioned they are in constant in fear to leave their children alone as if they don’t trust their children. The moralist will think this is not good but it’s their reality the boy want the girl if they will impede it there is a bad consequences.
Like I said before the moralist declare what the evil people always after or do as evil.
But I notice something if I observe deep down on it.
Lets first start to the evil side what that’s the common thing they after are:
1. Things
2. Wealth
3. Woman (out of perversion)
4. To rule people
5. Power
The moralist declare wrong and the religion is renouncing them. But if we look deeper on what evil people after it seems that it is perversion that and violence that makes them after this things but the root of perversion and violence seems like also the moralist faults.
Like I said moralist only wants serious good doers and “mature” people.
They perverted people and makes them obsessed towards nudity because they believe that exposing nudity is wrong and this is the consequence: if the society is to much obsess to nudity and very strict to clothing. The man who have curiosity towards woman’s body his mind starts to boil then violence rises then they no longer love a woman because they are to much obsess with the body then they will after things, wealth, woman, ruling and power this is very common to man. The two sides seems going in circle! The moralist provokes and declares the consequence wrong! Off course the moralist doesn’t care the real nature of man they only want serious good doers
But I think a person who lives with his real face will always know what to do he knows what is wrong on its own, what is right, and what must be done.
Now lets talk about conditioned by moralist most of them are just good doers deep down they are evil and the sad fact is evil people wants to possess other people and they always after beautiful people and wealthy people. Evil people will pretend they are kind and if they “win” people’s heart and when they get what they after they will be abandoned or cheated.
Beautiful people is becomes a great obsession for conditioned society especially for youths and since evil people is very common for conditioned society the ugly ones will be treated like an animal or bully them and will after the beautiful ones out of perversion and this is very common. In such mad society beautiful ones will be after they will think they are higher than the ugly ones and will mistreat the ugly ones but they too are miserable both the ugly ones and the beautiful ones.
Now for the good doers they will feel sorry for the beaten people they will act kind to them and console them but the good doers are also wrongs because they too aren’t real for themselves in fact they aren’t helping to lower the numbers of evil people
The person who lives in a real face will not do that although they have similarity from the evil one they too dislike ugly people they too like beauty but they won’t trample the ugly ones nor do they want to possess beautiful person that’s why I conclude that ugly people weren’t supposed to exist and the one to blame for their existence is the depression of the ancestors or parents by theory off course.
Naturally society is dull, serious, so even so called love romance is serious the society believe that love should be in serious way and they keep enforcing this to people.
This is the criterion: love has to be serious. The man should not show any signs to obsess to girl’s body off course this is just pretending because most man is perverted!
And if the man doesn’t take it seriously and bring laugh of it the moralist believe that it wasn’t love because it was very common that the one who doesn’t take love serious is not love and both the man who is lives in his real face and the evil one doesn’t take love seriously and they actually on different sides! And the moralist against the two of them assuming that they are in same side! It maybe in fact the person who lives in his reality neither belongs to the both sides.
Personally I’m not against society but I just want to show my opinion on this matter because its seems easily to “read” I want to share what I see on its angels, the cause and effect, the root and the bad things. Please feel free to comment and I would be happy to know your opinion!
Re: Theory: both the morality and evil side are wrong
Wow, this seems interesting but way looong! I'll come back and read it when I'm sober.
Re: Theory: both the morality and evil side are wrong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mrpineapple
Yes, Morality is a societal creation, just like many things such as romanticism and prejudices
That doesn't mean there isn't a place for it though. Otherwise we'd have murderers and criminals left right and center.
oh yeah about that i think society along with moralist is also the blame why some people do this. its funny to think that the one who protects against evil people is also that one who creates some of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mrpineapple
Has this topic arisen because of yourself conflicting with your parents over a girl? (as in the example) because if it has, bring it up with them about their closemindedness, as opposed to blaming society as a whole for your situation.
I had a friend who talked about similar things and it was just that he was annoyed at his parents getting divorced but had diverted it towards morality.
err not quite its true that i also have conflict with my parents over a girl but that doesn't mean its the reason why i made this topic. but its just one of my example to tell that society and moralist sometimes impedes your natural needs and for the reason why i post this.. nothing i just want to share my view.. also i like playing with philosophy words it also helps me enhance my English and typing!
Re: Theory: both the morality and evil side are wrong
Shakespeare is way ahead of you buddy, he whittled it down to this: There is no good or evil, but people make it so.
Or something along the lines of that.
Re: Theory: both the morality and evil side are wrong
This is a very interesting viewpoint on morality and I can see where you are coming from on many of the points, however with this statement...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TranceLoverFilipino
They do programming or conditioning on children as if they don’t want children to be they are they they’re being shaped from the start until he grows up. This leaves a possibility of bad consequences gradually as he grows up the children might be rebel because they are irritated from what is right.
Some parents may try to 'shape' their children to act in a certain way, however I don't think this is the only cause of rebellion.
I myself come from a very liberal background, with parents who are balanced between discipline and fairness, however one of my siblings gave them hell, rebelling away from them in their late teens.
My parents were in no way the bad guys, in fact they tried desperately to understand the cause of this rebellion, but there was no clear cut reason why they went off the rails. I always find it annoying when politicians try to blame 'bad parenting' and 'breakdown of family values' on things such as the London riots.
Re: Theory: both the morality and evil side are wrong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Thefringedninja
This is a very interesting viewpoint on morality and I can see where you are coming from on many of the points, however with this statement...
Some parents may try to 'shape' their children to act in a certain way, however I don't think this is the only cause of rebellion.
I myself come from a very liberal background, with parents who are balanced between discipline and fairness, however one of my siblings gave them hell, rebelling away from them in their late teens.
My parents were in no way the bad guys, in fact they tried desperately to understand the cause of this rebellion, but there was no clear cut reason why they went off the rails. I always find it annoying when politicians try to blame 'bad parenting' and 'breakdown of family values' on things such as the London riots.
that's sad to know but it still doesn't change the fact that shaping children in certain way will not result for being lively and self honest. there are only two kinds of person that will result from programming the good doers and the evil. the lively ones cannot come out from it. maybe somethings bad happened and i still believe that people will will lose track on their own
Re: Theory: both the morality and evil side are wrong
Here's my two cents, and why i think that morrality is in fact right.
Somthing that one person does to help another person spreads love and joy. Love and joy is somthing that i am verry passionate about and i'm certain that the fealings you get that are happy and wanted must be possitive, morral and good. Anything that benifits more than the cons are good and right. This i belive to be a fact.
Things that spread negetivity must be bad because while there may be pros the cons most-deffinetly outweigh anything good that may come out of selfish, hurtfull things. And that can't be good.
*sigh* this is from the viewpoint of a 17yo dude who chooses to keep his innocince rather then shun it. So perhaps my passion and emotion causes me to not think as logicly as what you tried to explain.
Re: Theory: both the morality and evil side are wrong
Morality is most definitely real (and necessary), even if the concept of it wasn't present at creation (assuming we're removing religion from the pot in favor of a more objective viewpoint, not out of scorn or disrespect). It's really not a difficult phenomenon at all; it's simple. One way to look at this, regarding wrongness, badness, and evilness, is simply to consider the well-being of another. Anything, or maybe most things (to avoid speaking in absolutes, because there are always exceptions, yes?) that unnecessarily and unjustly harms, infringes on, or otherwise oppresses the well-being or lifestyle of another can be appropriately called wrong, bad, and/or evil. (Most) Things that do not have this effect are therefore good or neutral. This is the foundation of what is called good and bad/evil is what is taught in (traditional, but non-religious) morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Explorer Oak
Here's my two cents, and why i think that morrality is in fact right.
Somthing that one person does to help another person spreads love and joy. Love and joy is somthing that i am verry passionate about and i'm certain that the fealings you get that are happy and wanted must be possitive, morral and good. Anything that benifits more than the cons are good and right. This i belive to be a fact.
Things that spread negetivity must be bad because while there may be pros the cons most-deffinetly outweigh anything good that may come out of selfish, hurtfull things. And that can't be good.
*sigh* this is from the viewpoint of a 17yo dude who chooses to keep his innocince rather then shun it. So perhaps my passion and emotion causes me to not think as logicly as what you tried to explain.
Don't sell yourself short just because you're 17 and innocent. :laugh: You're logic is reasonable and well-thought out.
Re: Theory: both the morality and evil side are wrong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Explorer Oak
Here's my two cents, and why i think that morrality is in fact right.
Somthing that one person does to help another person spreads love and joy. Love and joy is somthing that i am verry passionate about and i'm certain that the fealings you get that are happy and wanted must be possitive, morral and good. Anything that benifits more than the cons are good and right. This i belive to be a fact.
Things that spread negetivity must be bad because while there may be pros the cons most-deffinetly outweigh anything good that may come out of selfish, hurtfull things. And that can't be good.
*sigh* this is from the viewpoint of a 17yo dude who chooses to keep his innocince rather then shun it. So perhaps my passion and emotion causes me to not think as logicly as what you tried to explain.
but how can one spread love and joy without being honest to self and follow your natural instincts? possible without following your own joy? and the moralist aren't honest to self they are just good doers and against bad doers. and you said you keep your innocence rather than to shun it this is the moralist doing. and keeping innocence while spreading love and joy is not possible
---------- Post added at 06:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:01 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Quik
Morality is most definitely real (and necessary), even if the concept of it wasn't present at creation (assuming we're removing religion from the pot in favor of a more objective viewpoint, not out of scorn or disrespect). It's really not a difficult phenomenon at all; it's simple. One way to look at this, regarding wrongness, badness, and evilness, is simply to consider the well-being of another. Anything, or maybe most things (to avoid speaking in absolutes, because there are always exceptions, yes?) that unnecessarily and unjustly harms, infringes on, or otherwise oppresses the well-being or lifestyle of another can be appropriately called wrong, bad, and/or evil. (Most) Things that do not have this effect are therefore good or neutral. This is the foundation of what is called good and bad/evil is what is taught in (traditional, but non-religious) morality.Don't sell yourself short just because you're 17 and innocent. :laugh: You're logic is reasonable and well-thought out.
actually im not removing religion i this view i hit them too i already discuss that the two sides are just going in circles. some "evil" declare by moralist are just rebelling instincts and also do harm to people and only moralist together with society can defend people against evil. and some evil exist people because of too much conditioning of moralist
Re: Theory: both the morality and evil side are wrong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TranceLoverFilipino
but how can one spread love and joy without being honest to self and follow your natural instincts? possible without following your own joy? and the moralist aren't honest to self they are just good doers and against bad doers. and you said you keep your innocence rather than to shun it this is the moralist doing. and keeping innocence while spreading love and joy is not possible
(a)Spreading love and joy and (b)being honest with yourself+following your instincts are actually completely independent of each other. You don't need B at all in order to do A. In fact, B could very well interfere with A, since many (all, really) people have natural inclinations that conflict with or are even in direct opposition to the spreading of love and joy, and that is where morality comes in.
Moralist aren't honest to self? Define honest to self... I'll do it. If you would say that it is saying or doing whatever you feel, that would be wrong, since the concept of honest to self is an abstract one and doesn't involve behavior; it's an idea; honest to self is a state of consciousness. Simply put, if a person does not lie to themselves, or, say, try to convince themselves to believe something that they very well know isn't true, then that person is being honest to self. That a person is a moralist does not mean that person is not honest to self. Like A and B above, (c)being a moralist and (d)being honest to self are independent traits. Recognition that it is not always okay to say and do whatever you feel and adhering to that is not not being honest to self; it's being responsible. And it is certainly possible to (e)spread love and joy (f)while retaining one's innocence. E and F are independent of each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TranceLoverFilipino
actually im not removing religion i this view i hit them too i already discuss that the two sides are just going in circles. some "evil" declare by moralist are just rebelling instincts and also do harm to people and only moralist together with society can defend people against evil. and some evil exist people because of too much conditioning of moralist
You're making excuses for evil behavior/people. Rebellious "instinct"? Is there such a thing? You might've meant rebellious behavior? Evilness is the product of things like (extreme) selfishness, hate, stupidity, and ignorance, not moral advocacy. No matter how it's dressed up (acts of rebellion, etc.), it's wrong, and bad for humanity. I want to ask you to prove your last sentence, please.
Re: Theory: both the morality and evil side are wrong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Quik
(a)Spreading love and joy and (b)being honest with yourself+following your instincts are actually completely independent of each other. You don't need B at all in order to do A. In fact, B could very well interfere with A, since many (all, really) people have natural inclinations that conflict with or are even in direct opposition to the spreading of love and joy, and that is where morality comes in.
Moralist aren't honest to self? Define honest to self... I'll do it. If you would say that it is saying or doing whatever you feel, that would be wrong, since the concept of honest to self is an abstract one and doesn't involve behavior; it's an idea; honest to self is a state of consciousness. Simply put, if a person does not lie to themselves, or, say, try to convince themselves to believe something that they very well know isn't true, then that person is being honest to self. That a person is a moralist does not mean that person is not honest to self. Like A and B above, (c)being a moralist and (d)being honest to self are independent traits. Recognition that it is not always okay to say and do whatever you feel and adhering to that is not not being honest to self; it's being responsible. And it is certainly possible to (e)spread love and joy (f)while retaining one's innocence. E and F are independent of each other.
so you believe that its possible to spread love and joy without being honest to self. my point is if people are being honest to self and the crowd doesn't reject him then they will start to love the themselves until they overflow with love. so much overflow that they need to share the same love to other people and its only possible if they love themselves and this only possible if the crowd doesn't reject him and they being honest to self. if people are just a good doers without being honest to self how can they love others? it will be just pseudo, a pretending in fact they will hate other happy people! this people are very common to religions too when i say happy i don't mean happy on possessing things, its a happiness of being honest and without an idea of being small. and yes you cannot do whatever your real face is but you can make it satisfy until it is content true actions. if the real face is being repressed then evil people are born and this is what the moralist doings. i don't know why you say moralist are honest to self but ill just put an example: assuming that there is moralist are eating together with other children whose misbehaving they will immediately scold them, moralist says this is immoral but i don't see any harm on it and why not? if it will make them happy. as if they don't want lively people they want serious dull people who can do all "manners" and only people who are honest to self are truly lively. if the person happens to eat with misbehaving childrens they will not scold them he will join with them! i really dont see the possibility of spreading "love" and "joy" without starting to self
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Quik
You're making excuses for evil behavior/people. Rebellious "instinct"? Is there such a thing? You might've meant rebellious behavior? Evilness is the product of things like (extreme) selfishness, hate, stupidity, and ignorance, not moral advocacy. No matter how it's dressed up (acts of rebellion, etc.), it's wrong, and bad for humanity. I want to ask you to prove your last sentence, please.
sure thing. you are right that evilness is the product of all you said. but it was stemmed to repressed instincts which is commonly the work of moralists, is there such thing as instinct you say? ill give you some example of instinct: first people like enjoying things whether they are evil or not they both evil and non evil is enjoying but there's actually a difference the non evil will not keep things to themselves they will share it with other people the evil one wants only to keep the things for themselves and the moralist will go against the evil one. they assume that all people who enjoying things are the same as evil so they call enjoying things as immoral because evil is more common. then they will prevent anyone who will enjoy things and since people are naturally like enjoying thing and being repressed then they will become more obsessed with it. another thing is people are naturally fall in love in a tender age around 15 but the moralist will interfere they will prohibit it until they turned to adult but why they prevent it if people naturally fall in love in earlier age? it was their own instincts if it was prevented then the bad consequence will happen, if they prevent a girl to meet with a boy then the boy will turned to man without any maturity they will see a woman in perverted view. if a man is perverted they will no longer see woman as people but as an object possession that's why rape cases exist because they grow lack of any love maturity. off course the moralist will try to prevent this by preventing them in early age and teach them to "do this", "don't do that" they teaching "how to love" until they turn into adult and they believe this is the solution. they believe that rape cases will more to happen in early life if they don't teach kids with certain "good manners" the moralist defends against the side who is also their product. they just going in circle.
Re: Theory: both the morality and evil side are wrong
Here's my thing. Morals are a necessary part of any society. Is killing wrong? Not at all. But if everyone killed each other, then there would be no society, so that's why we teach that killing is bad. Not all morals are clear cute and some aren't even based on logic, but the point remains, morals are necessary for a society to be successful.
As for the whole needing to be honest with yourself to spread happiness, I can't agree with that. Have you ever heard the phrase, happiness is contagious? I think that's generally true. So as long as your happy, some of that happiness will spread to others around you. Honestly has nothing to do with it. It's like that question, "Is it better to live happily in a lie, or suffer in the truth?" You can ask that question a hundred times and get a hundred different responses.
Also, what would happen if everyone was honest with themselves? Let me tell you this, a lot of people have a narcissistic side that almost never sees the light. That is because, morals (of course I'm generalizing cultural morals here) say watching others suffer is bad, and you should help those who are injured. While I will say that a narcissist who is true to himself will most likely spread happiness to other narcissistic people, you're pretty much destroying a society in the process.
People suppress there "true face," if you can even call it that, all the time. I do it. My family does it. All of my friends do it. It's the exchange of living is a society. You give up some of your freedoms and desires in order to gain protection and other general things a society provides. I mean, do you really want people striping and having sex in the middle of the street? Or saying, "because I wanted to" should justify murder? These type of faces, for better or for worse, need to be hidden for the good of the masses.
In the end, I do think these moralists that you speak of bread some people who become evil to the moralists' own culture (Ironic isn't it?). But wouldn't you rather have a society with morals and some cultural evil then a society with no unifying morals (basically an anarchy)?
Re: Theory: both the morality and evil side are wrong
The morality behind good and evil is this, imo. Something is declared evil (or bad) if it is something that is good but in excess; if it causes harm physical, emotionally, etc; or if it is agreed on by the majority to be evil.
What is Lust? The physical desire of love but in excess.
What is Greed? Fullfilling your basic social needs but in excess.
What is Gluttony? Fullfilling your basic need to eat but in excess.
What is Sloth? Fullfilling your basic need to rest but in excess.
What is Envy? To be jealous to the extent that you resent others for having what you do not.
What is Wrath? To cause harm.
A lot of times tho, what society agrees to be "good" means absolutely nothing.
Really what "good" really is is an act of any that benefits the living conditions of the whole of society but never harm. But I believe there is a finer line between the notion of what is "good" and what is "right."
Re: Theory: both the morality and evil side are wrong
See no evil. What seems to be good and bad is corrupted in today's society. Just try to justify the American invasion in Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance. More civilians than terrorists were harmed, and the amount of soldiers MIA is higher than ever. But it's for a greater cause (oil), so we have to bear with it. Despicable.
