reply to post by Skyfloating
I believe that judging things in terms of consequences is a good way to go. However, I believe that sometimes when we judge things based on
consequence we find answers we don't particularly like. I'm not so much a moral relativist as I simply don't believe in morals as being a sound
enough measurement of what is right and wrong. Much as our concepts of "good" and "evil" are not tangible, scientifically provable things neither
are our morals.
Morals differ greatly between different regions of the world and what is morally acceptable in one country may be morally reprehensible in another.
Now, that is not to discount seemingly universal and fundemental morals of not depriving someone of the right to life liberty and the persuit of
happiness, however even these are not always held in the highest regard in every country. Therefore to label something as moral or immoral is simply
to state that this action, person, or idea is socially acceptable or not socially acceptable. Take for instance homosexuality, it many countries it
is considered both illegal and immoral yet today, in America, we believe that depriving someone of the right to act on their homosexual impulses is
immoral and sometimes illegal. However this was not the case even in America 50 years ago.
So having determined that morals are neither unchanging nor universal I believe it is safe to go beyond the idea of social acceptability and add that
morals are nothing more than what is considered socially acceptable by a certain generation of the population based upon current problems, issues, and
philosophy they are faced with. This is not to say I support a position of throwing out all thought and burning society to the ground, my personal
philosophy states that we should do no harm to others. But as in our example of a child recieving shots from the doctor, what do we do when we're
faced with a situation where we must do harm, or what appears to be harm, in order to safe guard a healthy and productive future?
This is where I think a lot of the animosity towards the "NWO" and "Illuminati" stems from. We are faced with many pressing issues these days,
many of them are global issues or at the very least involve multi-national problems. We, as a species, have recently become fully aware of our own
mortality and of the delicate balance that we must maintain to live a happy and succesful life. We've realized that there aren't enough resources
in the world for the entire population to live a comfortable and productive life like we enjoy in America and other first world countries. There is
no way that we, in our current system, can expect everyone to live a full and equal life.
We are beginning to realize that we can't continue to live in the current system we have established. We've reached a certain apex or turning point
in our evolution as a species and we realize that we must change everything or face our own destruction. What then do we consider the moral option?
Is it more morally acceptable to continue to let a large portion of the world starve and live in poverty with no hope of betterment? Is it moral then
to allow us to continue blindly down the path we've chosen of devouring the world's resources, polluting and destroying nature and killing eachother
over philosophical disagreements?
What if there was a better way? If we are truly living our lives as we were meant to then I believe it wouldn't be such a stuggle and it wouldn't
be so destructive. We must make a change if we are to survive as a species. What if the answer, the final goal, the utopia, requires us to take
actions that we would otherwise deem morally reprehensible? What if people must die, buildings must be razed, religion must be thrown out but we
achieve that sustainable utopia man has dreamed of for so long? Sometimes we are faced with situations where we must do something we would otherwise
not want to do but we accept that they must be done for the survival of ourselves or others. We are willing to do something immoral if the overall
outcome is considered morally right.
I would say that it is very immoral and almost "evil" to conitinue to let man destroy his home planet, fight with his fellow man and allow others to
suffer. It would be completely self destructive to continue down the path we are on and we may have to do things that seem "evil" or "immoral"
according to the philosophies or ideals of certain groups or individuals but these things must be done if we wish to survive. There are two things in
life, truth and delusion, we must always seek the truth even if at times the truth may not be what we wish to hear.
People believe the "Illuminati" and "NWO" are "evil" because they refuse to consider the macrocosmic picture of all life on earth. People
believe these gorups to be evil because they directly threaten the continuation of the individual while aiming for the betterment and success of all
man. People want to live in a utopia but only as long as they get to live how they wish. We need to learn self discipline and civic responisibility,
we need to learn how to sacrifice for the greater good. The world is failing because we are so focused on the self and on the gratification of the
self that we are almost physically incapable of understanding or accepting a truly global plan for the betterment and survival of the human species.
So we're faced with a choice, we can continue as we are, scratching and clawing like rats, stepping on eachother, struggling to survive. We can
continue to be cogs in a corporate machine, working under the delusion that we are doing the right thing and getting ahead in life. We can cling to
our precious ideals and concepts of "good" and "evil", our philosophies that divide and seperate us. Or we can accept a new way, a new way of
thinking and living. One that is in harmony with creation and one that provides for the happiness, success and future of all mankind. The reason
that not everyone is privy to the knowledge of their plans is because most people are unwilling and incapable of making the sacrifices needed to enjoy
a sustainable existence. Most people will not do something unless it directly benefits them in some financial or emotional way.