muso wrote on Dec 26
th, 2010 at 10:08pm:
How would you know that Hitler was one of the tares? Would you ask God?
Response...
Dictionary;
ethical = = morally correct.Dictionary;
ethics = =
1 moral principles governing or influencing conduct.
2 the branch of knowledge concerned with moral principles.The highest ethical position,
imo, would be to allow all persons to decide what is in their own best interests.
And to then, allow those persons
to act in their own best interests.
Of course those persons whom we define as a criminal and as non-criminal, would make different life choices.
But the criminal, and the non-criminal personality, would each consider that they were acting ethically.
e.g.
A criminal always considers that, in destroying another person so as to further their own [selfish] interests], they are acting ethically.
Why so?
Because otherwise, the criminal personality
could not act in the way they do.
Because,
what we believe [including criminals], always determines how we act [i.e. what we believe affects our behaviour, and our life choices].
Ethics is about [determining, AND, having already determined] what is good. [i.e. the feed back loop]
Ethics is about making choices [which have consequences], based what we believe is good, and morally acceptable.
We come to such determinations, on a personal level,
through the 'feed back loop' of life's experience.
But how do we, or how should we, define what is 'good'?
And how do we, or how should we, define what is 'evil', or wicked behaviour?
+++
PROPOSITION...If there is no God, then good and evil are meaningless concepts, except as they are defined by society, and/or by ourselves.
Logically, [if we can ignore or evade societies rules, i.e. if we can evade its 'ethics'] we ourselves [within our own 'sphere of influence'] always become the absolute arbiters of what is 'good', and, 'evil'.
Q.
And so, what happens, 'ethically', within an environment where there are no overriding rules?
A.
Whatever gives us pleasure, and materially enriches us [so as to enable us to gain yet more pleasure], IS DEEMED TO BE GOOD.
And whatever stands in the way of us obtaining pleasure, logically, HAS TO BE BAD, AND 'EVIL'.
Q.
And what is [or seems to be,] the primary 'morality' which has precedence in this age?
A.
"If it feels good, do it!"And, in an environment where ['morality'] rules are essentially absent, feelings of 'guilt',
are 'illogical', as feelings of guilt do not
serve us, in the delivery of those things which give us pleasure.
So the logic of an unethical [in my eyes] man goes;
"Why shouldn't i do whatever will give me the most pleasure in this life??"+++
PROPOSITION...The criminal and a non-criminal personality
will always be in conflict, and will always define 'ethical behaviour' differently.
A criminal personality, and a non-criminal personality, will ALWAYS be in conflict with each other [on some level], because their respective interests do not coincide [concur] - on an 'ethical' level.
+++
IMO, 'freedom', and 'the pursuit of pleasure', to this generation of mankind, means being able to do whatever they like,
...so long as there are no adverse consequences for themselves.
And that is basically what our society
actually teaches our children.
[i.e. avoid consequences, at all costs!]
Like their community leaders [i.e. politicians], this generation
want to exercise authority and freedom, but,
they invariably seek to reject responsibility [for the consequences of their choices].
Not so?
Look at the stories on the TV news each night.
IMO, the moral 'imperative' for modern, natural man, is this;
Whether i do something good, OR, or whether i do something evil, is unimportant.What is important, is this;
Is such an action 'in my interests', AND, can i get away with it?
If i can, AND, if such an action is in my interests, it is 'good', otherwise it is 'bad'.If 'ethical behaviour' is defined as acting 'morally'.
How would immoral behaviour be defined?
I offer this;
Immorality = = I make my own rules. [i.e. I am my own god. "...shewing himself that he is God."]
I can do whatever i like, as long as i can get away with it.
i.e.
"If there are no consequences [brought upon me] for my actions, then what's the prob!!?"Well, i am a person who does believe in the scientific process.
And i deeply believe in the scientific principle of 'cause and effect'.
+++
To me, freedom means, i should try to separate myself from those influences, which,
if i allow them act upon me, and my life, they will cause my bondage [
through their consequences].
i.e.
If i separate myself from wickedness, in my life, i will, remain free, AND, happy.
This is the principle of, 'Cause and effect'.
Its not rocket science.
Some time ago, i saw an approximation of our society's 'morality' emblazoned on a T-shirt;
"Its only illegal if they catch you."Murder?
Paedophilia?
The assault and rape of granny's within the confines of their own homes, by young house breakers?
Its only illegal if they catch you?If that is not the prevailing 'moral principle', for many, then may i suggest that you have not been watching the nightly TV news.