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 isnít 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 donít believe that this is Godís doing
Now why i think morality isnít real:
The moralist wants peopleís 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 donít want children to be they are they theyíre 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 thatís why many childrenís are evil in the early school life the teachers will tell what is wrong and what is right and the childrenís 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 thereís 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 doesnít 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 whoeverís 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 donít know if this also happened in other countries but in Philippines parents always interfere. Even the parents donít know their reality because they too is heavily conditioned they are in constant in fear to leave their children alone as if they donít trust their children. The moralist will think this is not good but itís 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 thatís the common thing they after are:
3. Woman (out of perversion)
4. To rule people
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 ďmatureĒ 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 womanís 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 doesnít 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 ďwinĒ peopleís 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 arenít real for themselves in fact they arenít 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 wonít trample the ugly ones nor do they want to possess beautiful person thatís why I conclude that ugly people werenít 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 girlís body off course this is just pretending because most man is perverted!
And if the man doesnít take it seriously and bring laugh of it the moralist believe that it wasnít love because it was very common that the one who doesnít take love serious is not love and both the man who is lives in his real face and the evil one doesnít 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 Iím not against society but I just want to show my opinion on this matter because its seems easily to ďreadĒ 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!