NO OBJECTIVE MORALITY IDEOLOGUE CAN CLARIFY PARAMETERS OF GOOD OR EVIL CLEARLY

Religion says that God is the reason morality, as in justice and love, exists.  So if you say there is no God you may be moral but you have no reason to believe in being moral.

Thought experiment.  We have to admire Sean or Jane.  One or the other.  Jane does good spontaneously.  Sean does it for he wants to be a moral person so he has a code.  Who is the best person?  Jane.  This is the paradox of morality.  The rules do the opposite of what they are supposed to.  It is really about people to admire themselves for their good intentions.  

In a nutshell, that is a reason why religious use of big terms such as "objective morality" is a bluff. 

Objective morality and objective hard reality are linked.  If we don't know what a rock is or a person, objective morality is no use to us.  But science shows we don't know as much about the boulder in front of us as we think.

To say something is a fact or objectively true, involves three things.

ONE- An observer.

TWO- Something independent of that person for them to observe.

THREE- And the ability of the observer to deduce and communicate what has been observed to others.

All this drives you into trouble when you start to say that objective morality exists.  And you take others with you.

Objective morality might do.  But that could in fact be irrelevant.  An asteroid in some universe at the edge of reality might be as relevant.  It would be irrelevant if we cannot detect it.  Same thing.

Many statements are not objectively correct but are merely conveniences. So accuracy becomes an issue. For example you may call the earth a ball but it is a bit different from a ball. The sun passes for a circle but is in fact a shape-changer and we are too far away to notice. So you strive for enough accuracy so that you can give the other a sufficient idea of what you mean.

We all know that if people are shown something cruel or good they will differ on exactly what they have seen and how it is cruel or good.

No wonder when they say evil pretends to be good or justified and lies and confuses.

Evil and good are fuzzy. Each one is fuzzy anyway. And we are fuzzy with them even if they are not.  We all make mistakes.

They are treated as opposites by everyone.  Many tell us that good is real for God does not make evil so evil is just like a distortion of good and is nothing.  It is a lie an illusion and is not a power.  This denies they are opposites.  But they still say they are like opposites in many respects. 

For some reason, trying to learn about one by contrasting with the other is still endorsed by religion.  It is founded on that method.  It will argue that it is better than nothing.  Make no mistake, the method is just a shameless lie.

One reason why we want good and evil to be opposed is it makes us feel we are in a cosmic battle between two forces.  It makes us feel important.

Another is that sometimes you can only learn about something by looking at its direct opposite. If evil and good are not opposites then that will backfire.  Only people who are pretending to know morality better than they actually do would attempt that.

Another is that by setting love and hate in polar opposition you are nudging those who are in the middle to take sides.  And if they choose hate, you refuse to take any blame.  But you will lay it all on them.  That is you, but a group or religion can be doing those things too.  It is horrid.

If you try a thought experiment where you set good and evil, love and hate, justice and injustice, in opposition so that you can define the boundaries between them it will not work. Try using sawdust in a storm to set parameters. That is because evil is good at pretending to be good. And seeing a conflict leads to fear and bias in you anyway.

Even if good and evil were clear the opposition method would not help.

Take oil. Take water. They are not technically opposites but you can make them so by putting them together in a container. They are not the same so one should be that bit more identifiable than the other.  Anyway you are only told about say oil.  As you don't test or see the water but how it affects the oil you are going to have to reason to work out what water is like.  That is clearly not going to help much.

If you wipe your mind you will not know which one is the oil and could end up saying that oil is very light and clear.

You cannot use one to tell you clearly about the other simply because you cannot turn into oil or water to see.  They are separate from you.  You cannot turn into a good that is out there or an evil to see what they really are and to understand them fully. You cannot then find the boundary.

Evil is unique to every person which is why I cannot learn about your evil well by becoming evil.  I am me and you are you.

If you try to be clear on one so that you will know where the other starts that is going to help a bit.  But it is not enough.

If you are fuzzy about the cancer you are removing you get most of it but enough will be left.  Those who war against evil are not as effective as they want you to think.  Peace is not the mere absence of war.  But their peace is.  In the light of the doctrine that evil lurks behind good and grows back that conclusion is unavoidable.  And remember as Jesus said only God satisfies the implication is that evil will never be satisfying and the person who is evil will keep looking for more and more.

FINALLY
 
Good should fall within certain parameters. Evil as well. To make it more complex neutral does too. Religion does not know what good is so it tries to work it out indirectly by looking at evil and working out what its opposite would be like. It does the same with evil. Yet if you don't know one how can you clearly know the other?

Treat oil and water as opposites for sake of argument. If you try to learn about water from looking at oil you don't really know water. Your conclusions are going to be prone to error. To turn it the other way around shows you cannot have a definite solid reliable view of oil either.

There is too much room here for mistaking or passing off your opinions as clear uncompromising truth. Doing that in fact violates the alleged moral standard you represent. Isn't arrogance a vice?

We don't even need to go into how neutral comes in to make it worse. A horrible situation balanced by a good side can mean you see too much of one side. You are never very sure.

One trick to blind people is to lay out a standard.  They use the rule book to avoid having to do the discerning but that is laziness and isn't that against any moral code you are told about?

Another trick is say God validates and stands for a moral code.  Throw a book at somebody that is full of rules and they will bin it.  So try a God instead and you might impress them better.

Don't pretend you know enough about right and wrong.  You know a certain amount and you have to make do. 

No Copyright