Understanding What is Right, Good, and Moral is Our Responsibility
Many people think they are “good” no matter what they do. Slavers thousands of years ago, centuries ago, and to this day, thought and think of themselves as "good".
source
Hitler and Stalin thought of themselves as "good" and doing what was "right". Simply thinking something is so, doesn't make it so. We all have a responsibility to objectively understand how our actions affect others who have done no one any harm.
When we do not seek, learn, understand and accept the core foundational principles of truth, good, right and morality, all we need to do is believe anything we or others do is “right” and “good”. We can believe anything without needing to demonstrate it in reality.
Our beliefs can “validate” all of our actions because when we are living in a subjectively flawed comprehension of our interactions in reality. That is all. No actual truth is required to be understood or demonstrated. We can simply believe anything we want to validate our current choices, decisions, actions and behaviors.
Objective detachment is required.
We could cook up a human animal leg, and if it was accepted in society as a normalized standard of acceptability, as “right”, then people would have no problem with it. We would likely not even consider that we were not “good”. It would be the current condition that we were conditioned into accepting as the de facto way things are, as what is "good" or "ordered".
It is that simple.
"Never underestimate the power of denial."
That was my graduation quote in high school, 2001. I use often in my posts too. Facing the mirror of the actions and behavior we generate from our own consciousness, is a hard truth many people do not want to face. We tend to be too attached to ourselves, unless we learn to let go.
Some people don't understand how to determine what is right, what is good, what is moral, or what is true. Because they haven't taken the time to develop thinking to understand how to determine these factors of life and living.
source
As a result of their inability to comprehend how to do these things, they have concluded that these things are not possible to be "known" and therefore don't "exist". Convenient, isn't it?
They don't know how to determine what is true, so nothing is true or false.
They don't know how to determine what is right, so nothing is right or wrong.
They don't know how to determine what is good, so nothing is good or evil.
They don't know how to determine what is moral, so nothing is moral or immoral.
They adopt flawed ideologies as a result of this erroneous thinking and shortcoming on their own part. Objectively determine things in reality? Nah, just keep an attachment to an erroneous subjective perception due to not wanting to think more deeply about how to live life.
Some people don't understand the grounding in reality, and have no problem floating in the clouds of fantasy and believe whatever they want to be "true". Our subjective inner-"reality" can be made up of anything, even imagined fantasy . To better understand and navigate reality, our goal is to align our perception of existence (the map), with the actual objective existence we share in common (the territory).
Confused thinking will result in a confused attempt at arriving at a conclusion. It takes time to learn. Truth takes time. Rather than learn more, we can often rush ahead into action like a fool, with erroneous conclusions. I have done it in my life as well. Getting information from more sources (if you cant verify it yourself), is a prudent step to take.
The above are why so many people are lost, confused, ignorant and unable to actualize higher, truer, realer, more authentic and genuine moral living.
The whole progress of humanity in history, in stories, narratives and mythologies, is a giant progression to learn about more moral living an actualize it. Even children's stories teach about morality tales.
Morality is a the real capital in life for higher living. We have the capacity for great good, and great evil. With great power comes great responsibility. It's time to own up to our power of consciousness and learn about our capabilities to live better more moral lives.
Thank you for your time and attention! I appreciate the knowledge reaching more people. Take care. Peace.
If you appreciate and value the content, please consider:
Upvoting 
, Sharing 
or Reblogging 
below.
me for more content to come!
Please also consider supporting me as a Steem Witness by voting for me at the bottom of the Witness page; or just click on the upvote button if I am in the top 50:
@krnel
2017-01-29, 12pm
Even Paul thought he was doing good while he was persecuting the Christians ... until Jesus got hold of him.
It's not a usual comment I make. :)
But I don't resist putting a little track " I believe in God" from Little Fyodor.
Hope I don't hurt anybody's feelings because this is just a joke.
Excellent! Very well put. I used to do a lecture called Designing the Perfect Society where I used Hitler as an example too...We tend to think of him as an evil guy that hated everybody so he killed them. He was actually trying to design what he thought was a perfect society. The problem with perfect societies is there are always people who don't fit the paradigm (this is where morality fits in). Hitler, in his defense, loved animals and passed a myriad of laws for the ethical treatment of them. OK I'm done now...Another great article- upvoted as always!
One problem is that many people want to determine what is moral for others when we only get to make that call for ourselves. How can you analyze whether an act is moral if you don't know the circumstances surrounding the act? And yet, we want to judge every act to see whether it fits within our definition of morality.
Perhaps that is what's happening to the people who refuse to categorize even though categories can exist, maybe the people who refuse to "set a line" not to be crossed are people who have been limited in the past by someone's desire to create lines for others, and don't wish to replicate this behavior because it wasn't pleasant for them when they experienced it.
When people refuse to be held to a reasonable standard, based in logic and natural rights, I try to hold them, at least, to their own standard. This is a sort of reversal of the golden rule. Many people are shocked if you treat them as they treat others.
Yes, reality contains the actions that are categorized as moral or immoral. Definitions apply to describe what is happening. Knowing if something is right, moral or good can be determined with knowledge of actions in reality and their effects.
It is up to each person to discern and understand what we all can because actions exist in reality and they affect others. Then we get to the same page of understanding and can move forward. Unity doesn't happen in disunity, disintegrity, disharmony, disequilibirum with others, or with what is happening in reality.
I think the understanding that we are connected is enough, the understanding that we all want to be good as you've mentioned before. But again, the problem is that some people want unity no matter what. They want everyone to agree with their morals and this is a problem because their morals are shaped after the life circumstances they have experienced which is not the same experiences for everyone.
People need to have the choice for it to be real. That's is why convincing others we are being watched by some entity who's keeping scores and will let them hurt and hurt if they don't behave to his will is ineffective. We can't force morality, we can't force people to understand an order they have not experienced and it may be worse if we try.
You could be the greatest witness of all, Steemit may only be surviving because of your work, but what do you think would happen if you told people you are the best and all who do not vote for you will be @mentioned in a negative article? You'd have a hard time convincing one person that you are good, let alone the best.
and we have to admit that what people feel is "right" or "wrong" is going to be driven as much by their personality as it is by anything else.
People that vale and feel secure in group consensus will choose morals that are "right" in that context.
...while people that value self-determination and personal responsibility will actually be right ;>
Kidding aside, you can see that difference at the base of most political differences and "moral" declarations.
[Edit] the above assumes that the person has broken completely away from whatever moral system he had been socialized into previously
[Edit] the above assumes that the person has broken completely away from whatever moral system he had been socialized into previously
a nearly impossible feat for most of us.
actually, you see it a lot as people move from peer group to a new peer group; one example is college kids getting brainwashed by liberal professors
The morals don't significantly change. Murder for example is considered immoral to both a liberal and a conservative. What changes is their ideology in how to achieve homogeneity of a population (both are morally wrong). Forcing someone to behave in one way or another is no morality at all, especially if you do it in the name of morality.
[Edit]
An example is being racist against white people to combat racism, there is no morality in this. Both the racist and the so called non-racist have no moral high ground here.
upvoted you to counter the asshole ;>
They change significantly...personal and property rights are subsumed by the good of the borg in the liberal worldview. Murder is fine as long as the target is an ungood person.
I didn't follow this; it seems like you are saying that the white person is indeed a racist. If someone is innocent of actually being a racist, and is attacked, then they have the high ground. Second, if the "victim" is indeed a racist, then punishment needs to be proportionate. You don't get to assault people because they disagree with you and/or have stupid thoughts
you do get to shoot them if they burn a cross on your property ;>
[edit] you could skip to the last 2 paragraphs, I left the rest so you can read my train of thought. Also who was the ass hole?
I am saying that morals don't differ significantly (that is to say the basic morals that I think people have almost instinctively), however the reasons for going against what ones so called "morals" are, differs from group to group. Everyone agrees that indiscriminate murdering is immoral. However indiscriminate murdering occurs quite a bit, because it is justified by something else, something like a sub moral. We will kill you indiscriminately on the basis that we find something you do morally wrong.
I am saying that engaging in racism is racist no matter what colour you are. People have physical properties and they have properties of their character, judging people 's character on their physical properties is fallacious. Like claiming that red cars go faster.
The white person is only a racist when engaing in racist behaviour (not just comments), I'm talking about things like not hiring a certain race for instance (happens a lot in Japan). Just as the anit-racist is racist when engaging in racism towards any group. This is not about colour, if you think that you missed the point, its about what group you belong too.
Both the racist and the so called non-racist have no moral high ground here.
I did word this badly. Somebody who believes racism is wrong and then engages in racism towards white people (on the basis that some white people historically were racist) are in fact racist. Their mentality is that the end justifies the means, which is not moral, its Marxist ideology. The opposite also applies.
I don't fit in to the groups that are currently available. This is why for me the most beneficial view that people can take, is one closer to individualism. If everyone was like this I would't need to worry about collectivist burning crosses, I do think that every individual should have the right to protect oneself. Where I am from we don't have this right, it is an offence.
...wait I might be wrong, however I will leave the above so you can read it anyway.
So the liberal who thinks that it is immoral to tease someone (with words) and hurt their feelings, has learnt this new moral. I was not including that as a moral (partly because I think it is retarded). You are saying above that, these young people are picking this up in uni (actually from when they start school) and the like. I would agree with that. But I would question if what they refer to as morals are actually morals at all, or just called morals to incite compliance with them. I would perhaps call them rights (or lack there of ).
Above I was thinking about a moral that seems to be ingrained in most of us. Only a very small minority of people engage in murder without acknowledging the moral cost.
nested reply:
very well said altogether ;>
I didn't hink you were accusing in the quote that I pulled; you explained that it was poorly worded and I understand that now; thanks for the reply!
too true, but we have to recognize that as man is a social animal many people instinctively choose collectivist "Morality"
Apology for the long comments in advance, I am more getting down my thoughts then asking questions that requiring responses, but please do if you want, it helps me develop.
too true, but we have to recognize that as man is a social animal many people instinctively choose collectivist "Morality"
I do recognise this, however if this is what we call morality, does morality just become an excuse for an ideology? If moral is something that we just make up, and not see to be true (really apparent) is there any use in it, because we can just keep making up new morals to justify breaking old ones.
To see it to be true, I mean could we (I don't know if we could) have a set of "morals" that are apparent, that can be confirmed by anyone through application of thought. We know when we look over a cliff exactly what will happen if we jump off, it is apparent. I have an idea that this may be possible, however it is just an idea. I need to think about it some more.
So in terms of the post, yes we don't know how to determine morals, other than using past and possibly flawed knowledge (moral knowledge not technical knowledge). Then the issue, may be how do we come up with something objective, without letting go of the past influences.
Side note:
I think a society built on the morals based on technical scientific knowledge would be something similar to what is portrayed in "We" a book by Yevgeny Zamyatin. I did a post on him.
Great post. Morality based on knowledge is no morality at all, what do we even know? Apart from 40 000 years of accumulated ideologies on what is morality.
I must respectfully disagree, so long as knowledge includes objective truth. I agree, if the knowledge you refer to excludes it. There is more to morality than knowledge however. Wisdom in how to apply it is also necessary for moral action.
Yes I am excluding this, all the day to day knowledge, science and observations etc, that technical kind of knowledge is necessary. I should have specified that in my comment.
I always go back to the comments from Peter in Acts 2:38. (Original Source Document) I enjoy the accreditation of "Bible Scholars" who work their entire life to prove something "Untrue". When in fact typically quote "There is no Truth'. There is this world, beyond the physical, I agree.
Yes, you are so right. I'm convinced that living an ethical life is so much better than living a wealthy one. And yes, there is objective good and evil, no matter how many people nowadays deny this fact.
And it's not an us against them matter. "Me and my folks are the good guys and the others are the bad ones" It's about how we behave, if we show compassion or cruelty towards our fellow humans, respect or disdain, generosity or greed, honesty or falsehood.
Excellent post. I believe this topic addresses the real virus at the crux of humanity. The crippling inability to learn, or even discern what is correct information, has caused us to stray wayyyy off-azimuth from alignment with natural law. It's actually gotten alarming to look around and see how many people are operating under the assumption that there is no ultimate truth, or objective right and wrong, that it's overwhelming to think about what it would take to un-teach the notion. On that, Mark Passio has some really great lectures on application of the Trivium & Quadrivium here for anyone who is interested. Watching them, I have to wonder why we wouldn't naturally teach these things to our children before they become contributing members of society?
Again, great post. Thanks for taking the time to put it out into the world.