Is there truely a such thing as something factually being right or wrong? I think a moral is fictional and not a fact. What about you? What defines a right conduct or a wrong conduct? Keep this moral definition in mind: 3.founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations. ^^^This is why I have no morals because I dont see things as right or wrong, no, I see things, in my own opinion, as good (like delightful) or bad (like disgusting) for myself and others. And I sometimes might get to see something bad for others be something good for me. Like with me having gotten my revenge on someone.
Ethics are artificial. C.S. Lewis argues that to cast ethics as being insubstantial is to cast everything away to nothingness. Well, it's quite a stretch but I can see the point. There is a difference between saying, "I do what I want, because I wanna!" and, "I rebel because this is simply wrong, I must be right, I cannot bring chaos, disorder, dishonor to my family. I believe in right" One is for ego, the next for 'ethno'. Is there such a thing where someone can do good, but good because they have a developed sense of self, because they have abandoned the social cohesian into something greater? Can a "self" thrive in an environment for "selves", the group? Well, yeah. "Postconventional" morality it's called, as opposed to conventional and pre-conventional. The individual abandons fear of conventional thinking, while still expressing and believing personally in moral codes and conduct. Is there something beyond this? Possibly. I haven't read much into ethics, but post-conventional was as far as it seemed to go. Within that general term we can ask: Can one love and act out of compassion without it being right? Yes! Unconditional love simply is. It has no terms, no limitations. It is action, direct, perceiving, no boundaries. So why not? There is nothing to hold you down. You feel for the other, you observe the other. You are pained, or feel another's pain. I do not know how many of us are capable of acting out of true unconditional love, for many of us fear. We doubt ourselves, we fear our image in front of others. It is easier to bend and submit, and not in the taoist sense of bamboo shoots moving pliable with the storm, but we curl like ripples in a shallow pond, stagnant and unwilling to budge as we collect in familiar musks. Lewis argues that such as "musk" has performed cohesian of societies since the earliest civilization. That's right! But we fail again and again to observe the depth of the human potential, the ability to rise to higher occasions, and see not black and white but colors in multitude and depth. We do not roam in a horizon of honor, patriotism, and religion. It goes deeper, and higher! Dare we fly?
probability can be objectively observed. the more suffering there is, the more likely each of us are to suffer. the more suffering each of us contribute to in whatever way, intentional or not, the more of it there is. so you could say the one 'factual' wrongness (unless you WANT suffering), is to knowingly and avoidably contribute to it. there are no 'facts' as such, that is to say, no irrefutable proofs (there may be a few odd absolutes kicking arround, but that doesn't really change the picture). but there ARE probabilities. some things do happen more often then others, and some things do happen more often when other things happen first. i don't know if we can know anything, but i do know we can make an effort to avoid deceiving ourselves. more things probably exist then any of all of us togather have ever immagined. the likelyhood of any of them resembling what anyone wants to think they know about any of them is not great. but it is, whatever else may or may not exist, up to us, to avoid screwing everything up for each other. that's where 'factual morality' comes into it. and the beggining and end thereof. =^^= .../\...
