posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 04:52 PM
This is one of those inane topics created by bored people who are either just out to stir things up, or really don't have a brain.
Humans are instinctively conditioned to survive, as individuals, groups and nations.
Within this idea - that of survival, we unravel the heart of morality. That which promotes human life, happiness and success is good - that which
threatens it is bad.
Social groups have a better chance of surviving than individuals - therefore negotiating, friendship and so on are 'good' - dissension, intolerance
and hate are 'evil'.
Destruction of those forces which threaten our survival as a race is good, destruction of those things which support us, and provide us life and
happiness is evil.
For this reason we should look inside ourselves and judge all our actions and thoughts against this clear basis of morality - we do not need to be
told - we already know, however - we should set aside what society and religion deems to be good and evil - and affirm those things ourselves from
this acid test.
If reproduction is good when we are at risk of extinction, is it still good when we are so populous that we risk destroying the land and resources
upon which our existence is dependent?
What is moral changes with external conditions - rote sets of rules are not able to take this into account, and should be set aside in favor of a
holistic approach to morality - based on what supports our ongoing survival as an individual, a family, a neighborhood and as a nation.
Destruction is neither good nor evil - it is the application and purpose that determine its moral basis.