The problem of evil

You have a lot of integrity and I am the same way, so I know the downside of it. Isn’t it strange that I’ve grown to hate people because I’m considerate of them (since that’s the only reason to have integrity)? The bad part of holding yourself to high standards is being in judgement of those who don’t. I’d like to think of myself as easy-going because it really doesn’t matter what we have for dinner or what we watch on tv (to an extent) and I see myself as pliable and varied in interests, but can’t tolerate when people can’t keep their word and they never can. Never. It’s a grand fluke if someone accidentally did what they said they were going to do. So if there is a bomb, screw it, it’s not my business because it’s likely a lot of people who would piss me off anyway with their lack of consideration: pull in front of me then turn left, drive slow without giving others an opportunity to pass, raise hell and make noise with no regard for neighbors, promise to arrive at a time and then not show, etc, etc, etc. People are animals with an extra helping of pride and I’ve no obligation to protect the haughty. I’d sooner protect a real animal and if I ever caught anyone torturing an animal, one of us is going to die.

I’ve done a lot of soul searching lately and I don’t know why I keep my word. Why do I bother? No one else can. It’s as if I’m playing a game and I want my character to be a certain way for no reason whatsoever, other than to see how it plays out. Has anyone noticed how I diligently reply to everyone and every point? No one returns the favor however as all have left me hanging. So why do I bother? Why do I do for others what they won’t do for me? Why do I hold myself to such a standard? Idk, I’m still in the process of figuring things out.

“Those who know, don’t speak; those who speak, don’t know.”

“The act of writing is the act of discovering what you believe.”

So here we are… the blind leading the blind, muddling along and trying to figure it out.

Can you?

That’s my favorite emoticon

Psychopaths lack empathy, consideration, which incidentally seems consistent with most of the population (lack of consideration). Hitherto I thought psychopaths were rare, but now I’m thinking they may be the norm. How many people genuinely consider how their actions affect others? Or maybe they aren’t smart enough to give it consideration. Something is lacking!

If your conscience tells you what is good for you, then it’s also saying what is good for the people who you interact with and as a consequence what is good for society.

Why do you retreat from that idea and pretend that you don’t know what is good for society?

Because I don’t even know what is good for me, nevermind others and even less about society as a whole.

And what is a good society? Are we to maximize population or maximize the quality of the members of the population? What is a quality member?

Then what was all that talk about trusting your conscience??

Does it mean that you don’t trust your conscience to tell you what’s good for you?

I’m really confused now.

I think that many of a society’s norms and values are inextricably linked to what our consciences inform us is morally right and wrong. Such that people who do not act within the spectrum of what is considered morally acceptable are classed as deviants. I think that through introspection our consciences are capable of informing us what is good or best for ourselves and others. The importance of the conscience in human development may be understated, but I think that a society with a general consensus of what is conscionable, that aims towards what is morally right, is one that would be more likely to thrive, due to having a strong emphasis on equality and cooperation.

That is where discussions and debates come into play and better laws drafted.

If you think living by duty and honor is psychopathic then do not live for duty and honor.

Regards
DL

Because that’s all we can do. If you cannot trust yourself, you can’t trust anything, so you have to trust yourself knowing you’re going to be right and wrong sometimes, but you can’t impose that decision on someone else.

You impose that decision on everyone that you interact with directly and indirectly. And you do it every day.

You decide, you act. Then people react. Society changes as a result.

I don’t know what you expect to be different.

Because they deviate from the norm.

Society seems awfully decadent to me. I see some imposition of morality, but not much practicing.

There is a song that goes “You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything.”

Sniped for brevity.

You do what you do for your own sense of duty to your fellow man and the honor you feel that allows you to hold your head high.

" The bad part of holding yourself to high standards is being in judgement of those who don’t."

Yet if those like you did not, the rest would never improve.

“Those who know, don’t speak; those who speak, don’t know.”

If one is in the know and does not speak, then one does not love or care about his fellow man.

I quote few word out of the scriptures for their moral value, because they are few but do quote this one.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

I do not love near as well or as much as I should, and likely never will, but duty forces me to try to correct which at the same time would correct myself if I were wrong thanks to whatever wisdom I would learn from my interlocutors.

Imagine if no one bothered to correct poor thinking or actions. We would still be living in caves and trees.

Remember that when a love bias is formed, it’s counterpart, a hate bias is formed against whatever goes against your love bias. IOW, hate is born of love and should be embraced as it will act to reduce hateful actions and thoiughts.

We should work both our love and hate biases to their limits.

Like a newscast though, people will see more evil than good.

Regards
DL

I agree. That seems to be the case except when a country is religious. Stats are showing that the more religiosity there is in a country, the less peaceful and internally coherent it is.

Religion is not our friend, even though I am one of those who follows a religious ideology. Gnostic Christianity. We tend to be peaceful though as we are thought to be closer to agnosticism than theism.

Regards
DL

No, I’ve been unceremoniously replying to everyone and every point for the last 4 months while quietly watching every single person here eventually fail to reciprocate and I’ve not said a peep until now and only because it’s an example of my morality affecting my decision, but not y’all’s.

Do I put myself above you? Maybe, but I couldn’t do what y’all do because I view it as inconsiderate. I just don’t feel right about it and I never have. The only way I can leave anyone hanging is just to leave to site altogether. So are you superhuman or am I? How can we tell? Is the drunk drinking 30 beers per night superhuman? Or the one who wouldn’t notice if beer fell off the earth? Who has the advantage?

Morality is obviously a disadvantage:

Survival was a moral as well as a physical struggle. A woman doctor wrote to a friend in June 1933 that she had not yet become a cannibal, but was “not sure that I shall not be one by the time my letter reaches you.” The good people died first. Those who refused to steal or to prostitute themselves died. Those who gave food to others died. Those who refused to eat corpses died. Those who refused to kill their fellow man died. Parents who resisted cannibalism died before their children did.[52] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Morality seems a high-brow game among gentlemen to feel superior to everyone else while in competition with each other.

“The fact that you possess a sense of morality, and we do not, gives us an evolutionary advantage.”

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm_06apWsRg[/youtube]

Serendipper,

Exactly, but putting laws aside, what defines what the norm is? Memes, the zeitgeist, sub-cultures? Or is it something deeper / more intrinsic to the human-condition like conscience or the need for survival? I’m not sure?

Things can seem that way I agree, but is that necessarily the case? I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, which has sometimes been advantageous.

From my limited perspective, society seems to be stagnant in terms of morality, although when I look through the history books and the things that have occurred, I think that morality is on an upward curve, which (I think) is evident, as we’ve had a few paradigmatic shifts. So I think there is change for the better in terms of morality, but we may not experience the changes in our lifetimes.

Its a maxim that a lot of people use. Basically I think its about having principles and whether we are willing to compromise them or not. I’ve stuck to principles in the past, but it came up turtles. I’m not so sure I wouldn’t compromise if faced with the same situations again, would compromising imply that I have fallen for something?

It’s not so much a sense of duty but sense of consideration. If we agree to meet at 5, I will be there because I’m considerate of you, not because it’s my duty to arrive. And because I’ve extended the consideration, if you do not show, then I’ll be mad because the consideration I’ve shown was not reciprocated.

Well, it’s not working because ever since smartphones came along, people took a dive off the moral ladder. For every example I am, there are 1 billion opposites.

I suppose it’s because he doesn’t have a puzzle to solve because it’s already solved, so no reason to chat about it. The ones who talk are the ones who haven’t solved their own problems. “The empty can rattles the most.”

Yes but then there are the plagues he dispensed which didn’t produce correction, but made the people dig in more in their ways.

Revelation 16:11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.

Where does the sense of duty originate?

Yes but knowledge progresses one funeral at a time. People don’t like to be corrected.

Yes exactly. You must hate that which threatens what you love.

A coincidental agreement defines the norm. Just ask a group of people what they feel is right and there you have a norm and the deviants.

Morality could be cyclical rather than steadily progressing one way or the other. We now have gay marriage, transgenderism, undermining the sanctity of marriage in general and family values, rejection of 10 commandments from schools, and 100s of other subtleties that contribute to an overall decline in having anything to stand for.

Like the Garden of Allah song by Don Henley:

[i]It was pretty big year for predators
The marketplace was on a roll
And the land of opportunity
Spawned a whole new breed of men without souls
This year, notoriety got all confused with fame
And the devil is downhearted babe, cause
There’s nothing left for him to claim

He said it’s just like home
It’s so low-down I can’t stand it
I guess my work around here has all been done [/i]

Y’know I remember when things were a lot more fun around here
When good was good and evil was evil
Before things got so fuzzy

azlyrics.com/lyrics/donhenl … allah.html

Maybe

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

I’m guessing either you built your principle on the sand and it fell or you built it upon a rock and then was lured away. So I suppose either it fell or you fell. The same things happened to me too.

GIA,

I agree. The seemingly “outdated” nature of religion can have the effect of causing a society to be non-progressive or worse. I believe the correct term is anachronistic.

That’s all good. I think that religion can have benefits for the individual, but it’s imposing nature hasn’t really worked for any of the societies where it is very prevalent. But that’s my Western perspective.