Post
Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device

Chapter 1: Good And Evil And Just How Real They Are

Activity in the universe can be boiled down to two different activity types. The mundane type is physics. Physics does it job transitioning energy within the four spacial dimensions of the universe. The other set of activities comes under life decisions. Different living organisms with varying levels of will power decide upon the direction, intensity, and content to employ their body and influence their surroundings. Life decision is actually the thing that is interesting because there is no real way to predict it.

Physical activities, while real, do not really balance out on the good and evil scale. While they don't have moral content on their own, they do set a medium that decides how much good and evil content is in life decision. If you know enough about physical being, you can predict exactly what it will do.

Life decision holds all of the good and evil in personal decisions. It is measurable as well. A decision that is more good than evil, opens up more options and freedom for life. A decision that is more evil than good, reduces the number of options for life. It is almost impossible to know just how much good and evil goes into any decision because of the complexity of the universe, but you can get a general idea if you think hard enough on it. It is also noteworthy that the physical universe reacts to life decisions and helps determine just how much freedom becomes available or is diminished by a decision.

Armed with this insight, we can start asking ourselves the difficult questions. Is it a good idea to kill and eat that cow? We know the level of awareness and options the cow has to a degree. We also know just how dynamic the people can be that will eat the cow. The evil of destroying the cow's options will tend to be much less than the freedom allowed the people who eat it. For this reason, eating the cow is probably a good idea so long as the people it feeds are more good than bad.

The idea of good and evil being relative norms is absurd upon understanding the true nature of good and evil. While a living being may be unaware of their actual freedom level, their actual freedom level is a real thing. Tying up a person who does more good than evil and tossing them in a hole is going to limit their freedom and create evil whether people perceive the action as good or evil or not. The problem that will choke most people is that a living being's intent influences how much good or evil goes into removing or adding freedom to them. If a person will destroy others that are more good than evil with their freedom, eliminating the freedom of the destroyer by destroying them will actually have a net good result by sparing the victims of the would be destroyer. This also comes into play with the cow. Feeding a cow to someone intent on ruining the freedom of others is an evil decision.

Now there will be those that say since good and evil have definitions that require insight into the future, they are academic and have no application. That is absurd as well. The situation is very manageable. If someone lacks information on intent, they can simply assume the living things will make good decisions instead of evil ones and try to maximize freedom for all since life tends to be self promoting if nothing else. When there is information on how freedom actually gets employed with a particular living being, a decision can be made on how dangerous for life that particular living being may be. If a dog or person consistently employs its freedom to kill others without nutritional need, it is safe to assume giving those living things more freedom will result in a loss of overall life freedom and is an evil choice. Even spending food on some living things can be evil since all food is life.

There may be those that will say this is totally unfair to rocks, but rocks don't make decisions at all. The biggest rub will come with the concept of consuming animals. Animals have the highest form of freedom compared to plants. People will err and say it is totally bad to consume any animal. This is false, but requires full analysis to understand. First, any animal must get energy from the sun to move and that will come through plants. Letting any animal live inherently limits the freedom of other animals. Said another way, the life of an animal is guaranteed to have an element of evil to it since it collects energy from life choices. Only a plant can have a life without evil since it collects more energy than it uses from physical actions, but even plants limit other plants on many occasions. Second, some animals get very destructive in their behaviors and it becomes remiss just to let them live knowing the damage to other life they will rend. Thirdly, any life is going to be food sooner or later for another life. Whether bacteria, or a scavenger, or a hunter eats something will shape the future and the freedoms that exist within it. These factors combine to drive whether consuming an animal is really a good idea or not.

Tombs are inherently evil as it turns out. Taking a dead body and preventing it from being of use to living beings limits life freedom. The materials, space, and labor that go into isolating the dead body are also a complete loss to life. Someone may counter propose that the memory preserved by the isolation of the corpse promotes freedom in such a way as to make it worth it, but any intelligent being would understand there are plenty of other media options that are less destructive and limiting to preserve memory.

So, in understanding the concept of life choice and how physics allows for options, it is possible to measure how much good and evil is in a given decision but unlikely for people to be able to measure it with high accuracy. This means the good and evil in actions transcends human perception and holds true in the real universe regardless of perception. Good actions will spread freedom, whether realized or not, while evil actions will reduce freedom. Freedom is based upon freedom for life as a whole. Individual freedom is only good if it promotes enough freedom for all life to justify the evil content of the individual freedom. Good and evil are never pure. The physical universe is too limited to allow a pure evil or pure good decision.
cpgnatly cpgnatly 41-45, M 14 Responses Oct 10, 2012

Your Response

Cancel

Good is not evil...and evil can not be good ..what is good and what makes it evil ..

Good and evil mix, just like light and dark mix. No place is completely dark across all spectrums and no place is completely evil. Good promotes life options while evil reduces them. I thought I was clear on that one in the chapter.

@Perk

You're absolutely right. Take God for instance. Suppose we concede for the sake of argument that an evil Creator/Designer exists. Since this being is evil, that implies that he fails to discharge his moral obligations. But where do those come from? How can this evil god have duties to perform which he is violating? Who forbids him to do the wrong things that he does? Immediately, we see that such an evil being cannot be supreme: there must be a being who is even higher than this evil god and is the source of the moral obligations which he chooses to shirk, a being which is absolute goodness Himself. As such, if god is evil then there must necessarily exist a maximally great, supreme God who is all powerful, all good and all loving; One who is the very paradigm of good.

So we don’t praise God for doing His duty. Rather He is to be adored for His moral character because He is essentially loving, just, kind, etc. It is because God is that way that these qualities count as virtues in the first place. Essentially, God is good the same way water is wet, diamonds are hard and stars are blazing hot. So if we think of God’s goodness in terms of His possessing certain virtues rather than fulfilling certain duties, we have a more exalted and more adequate concept of God and, by extension, of true goodness.

That's not how a syllogism works. (2) doesn't follow from (1) because it's a premise, not a conclusion. Moreover, you're arguing with yourself since you affirm the reality of (2) in your essay. Did you not read what you wrote?

Without a definition of God or evil. You really didn\'t say much at all. I think I have my terms defined how I\'m using them.

My apologies, I presumed you understood the meaning of such terms:

Evil - \"Profound immorality, wickedness and depravity.\"

God - \"The maximally great, supreme being responsible for the creation of all reality.\"

Any other questions?

To prove evil you have to believe in choice. At that point you have to face what I wrote and display that I\'m invalid in the face of choice if we are to go anywhere with any of this.

You base your concept of God on creation. Your God is smaller than mine and we are talking two different beings. My God is a source of infinite energy and knowledge. My God has no beginning nor end and as such has had reality in being the whole time without creation or end.

So, are you going to lay forth a position or keep quoting old or dead men I\'ve made a new discovery past? I see you trying to chop on my position, failing, and never taking a position of your own. I don\'t really care that those men are more intelligent than me. What I\'m interested in is if you can debunk the theory or not and so far all I see you doing is clinging to some cultural relativism guess you\'ve made that I\'m pretty sure is dead wrong now.

I. Are you hard of reading? What do you think a \"maximally great, supreme being\" means? He is all the things you describe and much, much more.

II. The fatal flaw to your speculation is that you arbitrarily ground it on freedom. On the other hand, I show that the ontology of objective moral values and duties can only be God.

In effect, I\'m inviting you to expand your epistemology such that you too can arrive at a legitimate view of reality.

I. If the being is that powerful you can kiss the concepts of creation and destruction goodbye.
II. Arbitrarily grounded on freedom? I submit you have not looked at where we are. I looked at where we are and what life does is the main interest. Physics, though fascinating, only does what it\'s told. If God set up this universe, then it will certainly reflect what God wants and it\'s obvious God expected bad things to happen.

My view of reality is fine. You have yet to show me yours or help mine in the least.

I. Argumentum assertio. Try again.

II. You misapprehend how free will works. To borrow from the brainchild of Harry Frankfurt, \"so long as a person’s choice is causally undetermined, it is a free choice even if he is unable to choose the opposite of that choice.

Imagine a man with electrodes secretly implanted in his brain who is presented with the choice of doing A or B. The electrodes are inactive so long as the man chooses A; but if he were going to choose B, then the electrodes would switch on and force him to choose A. If the electrodes fire, causing him to choose A, his choice of A is clearly not a free choice. But suppose that the man really wants to do A and chooses of his own volition. In that case his choosing A is entirely free, even though the man is literally unable to choose B, since the electrodes do not function at all and so have no effect on his choice of A. What makes his choice free is the absence of any causally determining factors of his choosing A.

In other words, a limitation in the range of choices is not the same as having no choice at all. If A, B, and C are good choices, and D, E, and F are evil choices, one’s inability to choose D, E, or F does not negate the fact that he can choose A, B, or C.”

When you go to an Italian restaurant, they may only serve 12 out of 150 possible Italian dishes. The fact that you cannot choose 138 of those dishes does not negate the fact that you can choose any one of the 12 options before you. Likewise, God’s expectation that man act morally does not mean man lacks freedom of will. Hence, God is justified in expecting mankind to do good and punishing those who abuse their limited free will to be evil.

You bore me. Bye bye.

I smell your fear, lol :D

*Yawn*

If you can\'t see and admit how much you\'ve already conceded then there\'s no point in wasting more of my time. Adios!

I thought you\'d never catch the hint.

8 More Responses

“Good and evil has no passport; it speaks in different tongues, wears many skins, and exists everywhere, even in the SAME PERSON”― A.H. Amin

The scary part is confusing evil and good. I believe it is a battle that will keep going as long as humans exist.

Thank you very much for this post. I enjoyed reading it a lot.

I\'m glad it was worth something. Thank you for checking it out.

How are your opinions on the definitions of "good" and "evil" anymore valid than anyone else's?

You don\'t see how I relate to reality and dismiss opinion? Oh well. Call back when your reading comprehension improves.

You say, \"you don\'t see how I [...]\" and that\'s the issue. (Bracket mine) Your treatise is riddled with assumptions, opinion and preconceptions. So my question is entirely valid, your puerile ad hom, notwithstanding.

Concordantly, again I put to you, what makes your opinions on the definitions of \"good\" and \"evil\" anymore valid than anyone else\'s?

For example, how do you prove your definitions are objectively true and all others objectively false?

I\'m not proving other opinions true or false. I\'m examining the real nature of good and evil past perception. I\'m looking at it from the angle of reality rather than perception and asking, \"Are the qualities real?\" The only way this observation breaks down totally is if choice is not real. If choice isn\'t real, we are wasting our time anyway.

Please focus. You keep saying \"I\" when the question pertains to objective truth.

From all the available parameters, you choose to quantify the measure of good or evil of an act based on freedom. Why? What makes such a selection objectively true? In other words, how is this anything more than your opinions?

Because what a person can actually do is determined by the rules of reality. The only thing interesting that can happen in the universe is choice. If we had no choice but to be here, what does it matter anyway? That renders us both biological computers. It\'s a case of reality. If I have no choice I have no opinion. I\'m just doing what I was going to do anyway. In fact, your faith in opinion supports my assertion that choice is likely just as real as any physics.

You misapprehend. I have very little faith in opinion, hence my interrogatories.

For instance, since, regardless of efforts to the contrary, all life ends, a case could be made that maximizing one\'s pleasure should be the absolute parameter by which all actions should be measured against.

As one such famous adherent of this philosophy once expressed, \"The greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable ‘value judgment’ that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these ‘others’? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog?

Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and others as ‘immoral’ or ‘bad’?

In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me—after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.”\" -Ted Bundy

Since this equally compelling opinion conflicts with yours, how would you show it to be objectively false and yours objectively true?

Here is the deal. I cover this in Chapter 2, but why not here as well. If the universe is finite, you will only live one life. Evil is your best choice. If the universe is infinite, you will have to live many lives and you will find the evil you get away with in this life is the evil that cuts down your next 10,000 lives. It\'s a fair guess. Pick one. Good luck.

You say, \"we are too finite to ever know if the universe is infinite and worse yet, we are too finite to even see if this universe has a border to prove it’s finite.\"

Since you\'re including yourself in this, you don\'t even know if the universe is finite or infinite making the opinions you express here in Chapter One completely otiose.

You\'re not a very good guru are you, he he heh ehe :)

I just take my guess with infinite is all. I don\'t make any bones about it. However, you knowingly cling to a finite universe and openly choose evil. In your act of choice you prove the universe is infinite and guess wrong. Good luck.

Let me clarify a few misconceptions. First, I have not chosen evil over good and, second, I have no need to guess. The difference between good and evil is very clear to me because I know how both come to be defined as such.

Then why not share that? If you have a good definition, let\'s hear it and stop wasting time with whatever this is and make this a real conversation.

Was just waiting for you to ask, is all :)

Consider the following:

(1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
(2) Evil exists.
(3) Therefore, objective moral values and duties do exist.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
(5) Therefore, God is the locus of all objective moral values and duties.

In other words, as Dostoevsky once mused, \"If there is no God, everything is permitted.\"

That\'s a contradiction and falls apart immediately. 2 does not follow from 1, nor is 2 proven. It\'s very simple. If God doesn\'t exist, this is a finite system and we have no choice but to die. Certainly there is no good or evil in a finite system. Finite systems don\'t have choice and will end.

10 More Responses

Scientists say that everything revolves around photons. The stars we see in the night sky could've been dead for generations. If you travel past the speed of light then stop n zoom in on earth you could see dinosaurs roaming around. This is how light/ photosynthesis travels. Mind boggling right?

Not that mind boggling. The thing is, if you travel at the speed of light you are light and you won\'t accelerate past that. The real question is are the infinite number of our universes in existence so that we actually had choices when we thought we did or is it just this one with only fate to put us where we are.

@Cp

When was M-Theory confirmed to be veridical? This is news to me!

Ooh I\'m not touching on that subject, not with a ten foot pole.
*zips mouth

There is a man who killed another man, a rapist. Another man assists the killer to escape from punishment or retribution. Based on these acts alone, and according to what you are saying, how do they rank from evil to good?

We know the rapist is bad but have no idea why the killer killed the rapist or the other man assisted the killer so it's impossible to know. There is not enough information to figure much out. If the killer was killing the rapist to stop more rape he is probably the most noble, the helper second most noble, and the rapist a social problem.

Interesting.

Everything has the capacity for both good and evil. In many cases, one must choose between the lesser of two evils, thereby making one choice "good" or when choosing the greater of two goods, one acceptable choice is in relation thereto evil. One might argue that by insisting that there are two acceptable choices, so neither is evil, but according to your theory, surely one choice must offer more freedoms, thereby chosing the option that allows less freedom means one acceptable choice is then evil.

You may kill a cow to feed good people. A bad person may also consume that food. The bad person may then use the energy derived from that food to kill the good people. On the other hand, you may kill a cow, and then stand in judgment of which individuals should be allowed to consume the energy. The good people could become complacent, and with a need fulfilled, their desire to be productive would diminish, thusly they would become "weak" of spirit, however the evil person who was denied food might then grower stronger in spirit, more crafty, more creative, effort expended to obtain necessities resulting in increased capacity for evil. Likewise, you may kill a cow, and the act of feeding an evil person might then result in a conscience previously dormant.

Based upon this perspective, are ones actions then considered "good" or "evil" based upon the result of those actions, or the intent behind those actions to be considered? Which is "good" and which is "evil". One who knows, but does not, or one who knows not, but does?

In order to determine "good" and "evil" by means of the freedom which is allowed or denied, implies that one must assess which freedom has the greater value. If it is true that each action has an equal and equitable reaction, then by allowing one freedom you are denying another freedom. How can one be good? We can perceive one as being "good" based upon immediate results, but no action can be indepent of itself.

People will not always know just how much good and evil is in an action. Reality decides that. People have to guess. If you are working to guess well, you are good. If you are looking to guess poorly, you are evil.

Let your conscience be your guide?

People know what they guess. They also know what they pass to their children. Results will tell over time though. Reality will set in as choices expand or narrow and that is the real tell, not the guesses.

but people can only see the results of their actions, they will never know the result had they chosen an alternative action. And this cannot be judged by watching what others have done in the same instance... think of a coin toss...

That is why people have to focus on what they do know. Reality will only know the true potential. People have to go after the potential they know of.

And what if the only thing you know is that you know not? I am not saying I dont make decisions, or that I dont think I am smart... but at my age, I feel less confident than I felt at 18, and less passionate about my decisions... But less passion, and less confidence do not mean that I am not as smart, or not even in a better position to act than I was at 18... just makes me a little less likely to act in haste.

That's just wisdom. Sometimes wisdom gives us better perspective on how good or evil we are doing than intelligence. As you pointed out, the absolute truth is buried in the complexity of reality. It takes a lot of perception and knowledge properly applied to make accurate guesses.

But a guess is still just a guess. I have enjoyed the banter...but simply put, you start with I know Good and Evil are real conditions. To be very honest, in classifying something as "good" or "evil" you limit it as being just that. A thing can be good in one instance, and evil in another. As in the death of a cow, to the person receiving the benefit of nutrition, it is a good thing... to the cow, not so good, to the cows witnessing it, probably not so good... the the chicken who was the alternative choice, pretty good, and so on, etc. ad infinitum. The thing, the death of the cow, does not change. It is not good and it is not evil. It is death. So as they say in my neck of the woods, it is what it is..

No, you are being too quantized. The universe is not quantized like that. There is good and evil in every action. That does not negate the good and evil as you propose. It means there is a blend and people have the ability to tell which way the blend tends towards. How green does a light have to be before you know it is green enough to go? It doesn't matter so long as you can tell the general hue of what is going on.

A traffic signal generally contains only three shades, red, green and yellow. Its the yellow light that causes the problems. Red means stop... Green means go, yellow means whatever you want it to mean? Just as in life... to say that an action is either black, or white indicates that gray areas are obsolete, but in reality, black and white are just lighter or darker shades of gray. Is it okay to steal? No. Stealing is bad. So say a man has a farm, and on his farm he has an accident (after he plants his crops, but prior to harvest). Because of his accident he is not able to work. Because he has been unable to work, he has failed to make the payments due on his mortgage. The bank then forecloses on the property the man has been paying on for years. Its is sold for pennies on the dollar to a wealthy investor who then inherits the crop as a by product. The wealthy investor then sells the property, at 5xs the price he paid for it. The farmer on the other hand is still disabled, and now also homeless is without means to provide for his family who is slowly starving to death while the crop he planted in the fields he used to own is rotting on the vine. Said farmer sneaks onto the land to harvest the crop he previously planted and is prosecuted for trespassing. Is trespassing right? Is prosecuting a man for trying to feed his family right? Is it right to not pay your bills? Is it right to take the most money from the people in the least position to pay it? Which is the real evil?

Sometimes it's a good thing to steal. Legal actions can be wrong and illegal actions right. Les Miserables plays on this theme hard.

is it fair to the new land owner who rightfully purchased the land with a promise to pay, but who has not yet paid? is it fair to the person who paid and paid, and labored over the crop? so who is evil? Is it the bank who expected the money it was owed? is it the investor who earns his living buying and selling things? is it the starving man, or the man who wants to start a new life?

It's far more complex than that. People who participate in an evil society lose their goodness whether they are aware of it or not. Reality determines the right and wrong so perception failing to see what evil it is performing does not remove the condition. Life and the reality of life is the defining terms. Starving someone is invariably evil. Good would feed or execute. Torture and rape are sure marks of strong evil.

I am not disagreeing that is way more complex than that, in fact, I am insisting same. People who participate in a good society have an equal capacity for evil, it is only the degree that changes. To insist that an evil society produces only evil or a good society produces only good detracts from the concept of free will. If a person has never felt hunger, they cannot truly understand nor empathize with the actions of a starving man... a better example would be a child who is raised in an abusive home. Generally speaking said child will go to one extreme or the other in their own adult life. Some abused children will only be abusive to their children, but other abused children will go to the other extreme and will refrain from punishing their children. I offer as an example the concept of honor among theives. The very essence of their lives is dishonorable, and yet their is a self-imposed code of conduct. Your theory that examples set in society predetermine the actions of that society, cannot explain how a poor man who has never been given a break, who has known little else but discrimination, hunger and pain, can have greater compassion towards others than a man who has been afforded every comfort, who has easily obtained more food, shelter, clothing than he could possibly use. Should the softer life create a gentler soul, and the harder life create less conscience?

I try to make it a clear point in this presentation that good and evil are always blended in nature. I don't understand why them being separate keeps coming up. We are mutually agreeing.

Thats what I said a few posts back is it that you start by saying that good and evil are conditions that exist...when in actuality, they are not really set conditions at all, but actually conditional.

Reality determines the real options. They are not conditional. There are real options with every action with a blend of good and evil in them.

14 More Responses

by your theory most actions made in leadership roles in a democratic society can be judged as evil (i concur on this, most are there to constrict freedom of the many to make the few more free to do what they want), in a way the only way by your hypothesis that pure good or evil can occur is by pure chaos. This is much easier by the ideal of pure evil, as something not needing to eat goes in a straight line killing everything in its path and destroying all life it sees, where pure good going in the same straight line would have to increase the freedom of everything it sees even if they don't want the freedom. This presents quite a dilemma but you most likely already thought it thru to that point.

Rules are only required in a society to deal with the limits of physics. Behavioral rules are only present if evil is present. It does not mean the leaders are necessarily the evil ones. Pure good or pure evil are impossible to find. Pure evil has no life choices at all. It would be the universe with no life and we already know pure evil does in fact not exist since we choose. Pure good would be all life and no physics. In the infinite sense, pure good may already exist. However, pure good requires infinite knowledge of mistakes and some kind of facsimile of finite thinking is required to know this. My current guess is that we are those pieces of knowledge.

You are mistaken. Christ Jesus was pure good which is why he is the greatest man who ever lived.

What happens when two differing strata of good and evil conflict? Let say in your analogy about the cow...

"The evil of destroying the cow's options will tend to be much less than the freedom allowed the people who eat it. For this reason, eating the cow is probably a good idea so long as the people it feeds are more good than bad."

You have another level or strata of good and evil. The spiritual and personal aspect of humans has great impact on our survival and continued evolution because of the positive creative energy is channels into our thought matrix and consciousness. Mythology is the point where the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos pour into human cultural manifestation. Those energies fuel our evolution and nihilistic views reduce our overall pool of creativity which would eventually lead to extinction. In the Hindu and Indian cultures the cow is sacred, the culture allows the cow to become an "anchor" for specific archetypal energies to remain fixed into their collective consciousness. Energies which are archetypal in nature and have real effects on the human being (though the belief itself is illusory).

So who is right then, which is the great good as far as choices go... should a Hindu sacrifice an ideal that is greater than himself and serves the collective as an anchor for a higher strata of consciousness by killing the cow to save just himself or his family?

What is the greater good? There is no answer... Our personal beliefs and our personal choice of our own personal path determine what is good for us. Correct?

The same type of logic could be applied to your analogy on the tomb, which is more important the evolution of consciousness for a metacognitive species or the placement of its physical body after that consciousness that defines the species no longer resides in its physical form?

The Hindu would be better off if they could maintain their perception of the archetypal energies without having to sacrifice the nutritional opportunities of the cow. The universe makes this true in that the sun will be consuming the Earth in about 4 billion years when it starts to burn helium. Humans are the most likely life to escape the fire to another planet. Cows will only make this journey if they are carried by the humans. Reality decides what is best for us. If we err, sooner or later nature will catch up to our errors and we will lose options.

Reality/God doesn't judge us, we judge ourselves by our choices. But if the universe is truly infinite then judgment may not even exist in a objective sense. But I see what your saying, psychics and reality which we cannot quantify determine the parameters of how we are judged. Since we cannot know the future and cannot quantify reality all we can do is follow our hearts and allow our true nature to unfold. That nature either being logical or creative or both depending on how we as a race evolve. In the end all we can do is be ourselves an hope god loves us.

If we are going to bring God into this, it will require definitions. When I say God I refer to a presence of infinite knowledge and energy. Given that is what God is, for me, God has complete knowledge of all mistakes and knows a mistake can only occur in the event of finite knowledge. The only way to know all mistakes is to have them lived out by finite perceptions and to basically be those perceptions. In this sense, I have to go with the assumption of pantheism. My current guess is we are fractured pieces of the whole designed to know the intimate details of not knowing everything.

Yes God is Reality and Reality is God. I have been called a pantheist at times because of that view.

Then we both are fairly sure God loves us all. The infinite does not wish to render itself finite by disowning a piece of knowledge.

Very good. Carry on then Sir. As you were. (bows)

3 More Responses

This is quite an interesting hypothesis. I admit to reading a few sentences more than once in order to keep track of what you were saying. Your mind is strong and rather intelligent. This story led me to thinking about the feeding of prisoners who according to society are evil doers. Then I thought that the fact that their freedom is limited makes up for the fact that we feed them. Anyway I just thought I'd mention that in passing. Thanks for the "food for thought."

Imprisonment is pointless. How long should I cage a mosquito before it stops sucking blood?

What is your alternative to imprisonment ?

A person can repent by restoring what they damaged and then helping the victims with some kind of restitution. If their destructive desires have been demonstrated to be so awful that they cannot restore what they damaged, remove them from control of their bodies to prevent future damage. Generally, a snap of the neck can do this quickly and painlessly with little to no mess.

Would you be willing to have the job of "neck snapper" ?

To preserve the future? Yes. Don't ask me to snap a neck for revenge, though. Would you like to see my military membership history to vouch for the fact I am willing to kill for the right reasons?

Whose future do do speak of ? The human race, the planet or the universe ?

The future of life. Yes, all three.

Does this mean that you would be willing to snap the necks of people who pollute the planet ?

Depends on the level of damage they do as explained above.

I am interested to know who would be in charge of making these judgements on a universal scale ?

My guess would be it would require hard observation and that benefit of the doubt would have to be granted.

OMG! this sounds crazy too me!!

@ aWomanExperiencedSomewhat.

Lol. Yes well, not to worry, cpnatly and I are not about to go running around snapping necks. We were just chatting, discussing and thinking. I do not consider myself angelic and pure enough to kill another person for doing wrong. In fact according to certain things written in the bible not even angels are immune to the folly of man. It's just a bit of food for thought and I like that kind of food.:-)

Yea I like it too. It just momentarily surprised me where you went with these thoughts :) .. and then I thought to myself, that if cpgnatly was running for president, and I could vote in American elections, I definantly wouldnt vote for him :)

Of course not. Most people support rape.

ha! could you possibly come up with a worse comeback. Anyway this is your story and your opinions so I will butt out now.

13 More Responses

Loved this story. "Letting any animal live inherently limits the freedom of other animals" -- so true house cats are the perfect example. The roam their neighborhoods killing birds :( I love cats and want them to have a long happy healthy life (more freedom) but that creates evil (they limit the choices of birds).

Very insightful, thank you for sharing.

It's clear to me that you think that you're smarter than you actually are. Spare us.

I smell your fear. I think it's you that is flinging the doo here. Do let me know if you come up with anything constructive.

Not fear, not flinging poo. Just sick of know it alls and people who think too highly of themselves. I would have never commented had you not decided to judge me.

I didn't judge you. I saw your comments and judged them since you decided to judge me. My observations don't determine my intelligence here. This is what I see. If I'm seeing it wrong, I'm happy to adjust my perceptions. I've done it many times in the past. I do smell your fear. That is real. I'm sorry this causes you fear. I'm not sure why it does. I found this observation to be good news.

Well said.

1 More Response