Proposition to Remove Evil

[Pandemonium]

Good <local time of day/night> Everyone.

I am here to Proposition the removal of Evil, dependent upon whether it can pass mustard/debate.

The hypothesis I would like to present is simple: There is no "evil", and therefore it should be removed from the general public for the obvious safety concerns it presents.

To elaborate: It's a commonly held belief that animals are not inherently evil, or even capable of evil. For instance, if I drugged, kidnapped and then implanted my children in you so they could slowly consume you from the inside without remorse or regret, there would be many, if not a majority, of "normies" that would believe me to be evil (I use "normies" because I'd probably rather not know you sick f**ks would think about it). Yet when a wasp does the exact same thing, it's morality is not only not in question, but it is even imported specifically to do this exact act.

I posit (when viewed with No Grids & No Filters) that all human actions are prompted by a "good" motivation, even if the human morally and ethically believes what it is doing to be wrong yet does that activity, there must always a "good" motivator. Whether that be due to a belief, an emotion, or pleasure or the removal of discomfort etc. etc.

Ergo, there is no "bad" (Evil) motivatiors, as no human being would in a vacuum, take an action increases a negative stimuli, (Keeping in mind even doing something discomforting will have to have a "good" motivator behind it. Say you, reader, decide that "I'll show him!" And go commit some terrible act you are absolutely repulsed by (please film it), there was still a "good" motivator involved (Showing me whats what being it.)

When these motivators aren't in harmony within two different individuals, they each perceive the other as acting on a negative (bad or evil stimulus).

Therefore, there are only "WrongwayRights" or "misplaced Goods". This also lends credence to numerous religious beliefs regarding good/truth overcoming evil/lies, as well as the end of existence,
because just like when pebbles or sand are agitated within a container, and takes on the appearance of a single featureless mass, Therefore existence does not actually end, but simply becomes one, completely harmonious thing, and thus loses it's dichotomy which is what allows it to be defined as it is. 


This also allows for transcendentalist beliefs of some eastern philosophies (ex. ButtHitsum "that which is not subject nor subjector") as well as the Discordian concept of chao, or sacred chao? It Mu.
basically anything that neither IS nor IS NOT or slips in between the crack of the dichotomy.

(Guess what else is gonna be slipping between a crack later the result of your bad dietary habits, is what)

I look forward to hearing the committees opinions upon on this matter.

Thank you for your time.

-Gen. Pandamon

[Cramulus]

FIRST OFF, thanks for the topic, always nice to see newcomers roll in with something they want to chew on.

In the first beat, you point out how animal behaviors wouldn't be considered "moral" by humans - and that's right, because morality is a cultural construct. At the animal level, there isn't morality, there's only "health / fitness" vs "weakness and vulnerability".

I would also agree that humans rarely do things they consider immoral, there is always an exception or a justification which they use to frame their actions as Very Legal and Very Cool.

I disagree that there are no "bad" motivators though. I think that people are frequently motivated by bad things, but they don't have the sensitivity to perceive the badness.


Permit me to climb out on a limb for a minute... I think that most everybody starts in the same place, where there is Good and Bad, and Good is things that benefit you and Bad is things that hurt you. But there are developmental stages past that.. and we tend to assume everybody has reached them. Speaking for myself -- I didn't really "get" empathy until my early 20s. I understood it intellectually, but I didn't really FEEL bad for other people in the same way, I didn't CARE if I was annoying/hurting other people except in terms of what blowback I might suffer. I experienced a mental shift, and it reoriented me. I was much less of a dick. I mean don't get me wrong, I'm still a dick, but a ... smaller dick.

Your post suggests a general relativism - that Right and Wrong are matters of perspective.

And functionally, this is true--Hitler and the Unabomber believed they were helping humanity in the long run.

But their versions of morality were ego-driven, small, self-serving. They did not identify with the Other, so their version of morality is insufficient for the big picture. A child only knows whether they are hungry or not. A parent will go hungry to feed their child.

The general relativism of morality is a position of acceptance. I'm ok, you're ok. We have different perspectives but we can tolerate each other. There's an outer edge to that though. I recently had to separate myself from a friend because they were so hung up on population reduction that saw things like school shootings as neutral/okay. If you can't draw a line that says "shooting at a group of children is bad", I have a hard time swallowing that your moral praxis [the figurative 'your', not you personally] deserves the benefit of the doubt.

[minuspace]

One of the frameworks that helped me orient(ate) this morality stuff hierarchically, under the /absolutely transcendental/ auspices of ethics and autonomy, is Kohlberg's stages of moral development. Following the Heinz dilemma:

A woman was on her deathbed. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

We have the ascending stages of moral understanding with respect to larger inclusions of the Other, and Heinz's mutterings against them "in quotation"





Even though the model is supposed to advance in a linear and incremental manner, I remember having a little trouble with stage 4, even though 5 and 6 seemed to make perfect sense on the level of pure reason. Now I just don't bring it up with the boss, that's all.

[The Wizard Joseph]

Just remove dualism and the rest sorts itself out without the mess and laborious intellectual acrobatics.

[Pandemonium]

Oh apologies for the confusion (heh, ironic right) I wasn't trying to imply moral relativism.

Honestly what I was thinking about was


I'm trying to mull over existence "ending" by, hmm, becoming one continuous synchronicity, I guess? Losing it's essential dichotomy. as it's beginning and ends merged into one.

It came out as a moral quandary because I'm also thinking about the BIP and what the iron bars were supposed to represent, as I took them to represent biases so I basically just threw all mine away or learned to compensate for (which I figured would render them effectively nonexistent) because the intro to the BIP2013 made me feel like I was.. supposed to keep it? or couldn't actually get rid of it.
(which I just read since I was only here for just a bit in 2011 lol).

But I also kinda define self and perceptual blinders as their own separate thing, also separate from ego

I'm trying to decide on whether to see how it ends or whether to start working towards dissolution of self (Was just gonna take a page out of Buddhism)
but now I'm unsure whether or not I've successfully removed most/all my biases at this exact moment in time (since you can always get more biased. lol)

This is what I get for mixing and matching philosophies & """religions""" I guess.

This is also what happens when I don't have an intellectual or physical problem to compulsively solve. D: lol.

[Doktor Howl]

"If you want an excuse, you'll find one."
- Benjamin Ferencz

[Frontside Back]

In my striptease show I tastefully remove pieces of my clothing one at the time by realizing they are arbitrary concept holding little to no connection to an underlying reality.

Evil and good are like wheel and other car parts. They are part of the whole, but it's still important to know which way the whole is going.

Buddha was a self centered skinhead who starved to death under a tree. Her ideas weren't dangerous enough to be smothered in their wake.

How do you take in information? How do you process it? Bias is an integral part of your brain functioning. It took a jackhammer to remove mine and I've wanted it back ever since.

I heard the really really smart people get contradicting biases, not to cancel them out, but to see what holds water. Why wouldn't you want to hold water?