I know I’m quite late to respond to this. However I was curious. You asked if Life was ethical. What exactly did you mean by this? I believe that there is sin in the world, and so yes, our natural inclination is towards the violent and warring. However, I’m not sure that I understand. Are you asking that by the very fact we exist with these inclinations towards violence has tainted every aspect in a manner that is ethically ambiguous or just wrong?
I wondering if life (and the evolution of) follows ethics in the sense we use the word.
By no means I am saying that we should not.
That makes sense. Most of life tends to be unethical and cruel, as you stated, everything in life participates in some sort of unethical behavior. You hinted that we just have a wrong understanding of the word ethical. And that by using it to ask questions, we are missing the bigger picture. That ethics aren’t really a natural thing, but something that we, as humans, have created in order to try and follow a set of rules, with no real way to fully make the rules due to our innate functions as humans.
I’ve always wondered if maybe there are ethical rules. We just live in a world that makes the discovery, understanding, and implementation of them difficult. That by the fact that our automatic response is towards violence, that we have made the understanding of ethics difficult.
I may just be repeating what you meant, if so, I apologize.
1 Like
Are you suggesting that women and old people have no disadvantages?
Among the things being reported by the mainstream media is the idea that humans by nature are inherently good and will never commit so much as a bad word to friends or family, it is actually the system that causes all of our criminal activity and bad behavior in general (so we can fix the system and obtain a perfect utopia where everyone is at peace).
Unfortunately, it is all heresy based on the idea that humans are nothing more than a series of chemical reactions, not even alive as per the historic definition of the word. You can actually succeed at the eradication of what is currently regarded as the root cause for the world’s problems, but it will only result in the next scapegoat being defined because it did not actually solve anything. Wars will still happen, but for a different set of reasons.
Not at all. I’m suggesting that poverty causes desperation, and desperation can cause crime.
18 year old women in America actually have a slightly higher poverty rate than 18 year old men. They are also much more likely to have children that they are taking care of, so are much more likely to act in a less selfish manner to respond to their desperation.
These are certainly complex issues, and there are 10,000 factors that go into what motivates crime and poverty. It becomes a game of statistics to try to suss out some patterns. One of the biggest correlations to crime is poverty, and one of the biggest correlations to poverty is age. But again, it’s complicated. I’m sharing some of my opinions, and I can assure you that my opinions (like anyone else’s) are an incomplete assessment of incredibly complex issues.
2 Likes
I bet if you reduced poverty and income inequality, you’d solve a lot of other problems.
2 Likes
Also, the idea of a singular root cause for ALL of life’s problems is ridiculous.
I can’t clean my room by putting one thing away, you know.
And there are plenty of things that just need to be done regularly. Like mowing the lawn. Even if I do a great job, I still gotta come back to it.
The same is true for societal / cultural things as well.
Painting the work that needs to be done as meaningless because “we already did work, and there’s still problems” is a distraction technique.
Sure, everyone has opinions, and plenty of people express those opinions in broad strokes, or explicitly stated that if we only solved X problem, that would fix everything, but that doesn’t make that one single opinion the universal truth.
The truth is complex and finding meaningful resolution to life’s problems will require multifaceted, and often repeated, solutions.
3 Likes
Bear in mind that the USA had no choice in joining in WW2 in Europe. Japan declared war on the USA directly after Pearl Harbour, the USA therefore had to declare war on Japan, and then Hitler declared war on the USA to honour his treaty with his Axis ally (that was one international agreement he didn’t tear up) which meant the USA had no choice but to declare war on Germany in return.
It depends on your belief. Example, for Islam, war is only right when if other side attack to you out for nowhere. But if you provake to other side unjustly, then you are unjust. But if you ask me, “Has many Muslims been listening to this?”, sadly no.
Example Christianity, normally Christians never shoulding be fighting anyone. But in the history, Christians most aggresive people in the world. They attacked and attacking everywhere, every people, including womans (Witch Hunt), cats (Demon Hunt), Non-Christians, babes and childrens, and they ate infants, which this wrote in the Western chronicles (Heretic Hunt, Crusaders), Non-Democrats (Lies of the we will bring democracy), etc. etc.
In the end of the word, humans like a double edged sword, they can cut in the name of real justice, or they can cut in the name of desires, selfishness.
Except for the fact that broad strokes and blanket statements is, in large part, how the government and its media allies will portray things.
For instance, all of the world’s problems can be traced back to religion, all problems can be blamed on white people, every problem on Earth is because of capitalism. We know just how many people on this forum like to demonize the third one for every ill in society, and I would have enough money for a high-end RTX 4090 build if I had a dollar for every condemnation of it made on this forum.
On the first one, we just had a good example of that posted to this thread, which people will believe in spite of it reflecting how the media operates these days which is little more than lies all the way down. I would even say that if not for things like online shopping and FOSS projects, cyberspace itself should just be done away with and banned, considering how a sizable majority of all of its written content is falsehood and considering its overall negative impact on human behavior.
1 Like
If you accept a false framing, then you are propagating falsehoods. If you are concerned about all of the falsehoods being spread on the internet, maybe you can control the only person you are in control of and stop spreading falsehoods.
I try to flag my opinions as just that, but I will categorically stand by one statement: “The truth is complex, and anyone saying otherwise is lying.”
1 Like