TW - DEEP DEEP THINKING - Block if you are bothered
Tell me if this makes legit sense.
I responded to a comment and I just put my thoughts out there. But now I can’t stop thinking about it…
So, I grew up very religious and with a moral compass. Now, I wasn’t someone you would say had a strong moral compass, however I would say that I always thought the idea of morality was strange.
Now, it’s not like I do bad things or that I don’t believe in morality. I believe in a form of morality. I think that for one to think that morality is all based upon some omniscient source that judges what things are good or bad, whether that be a god or not, I think that is hard to say is fair. At this point we are gauging the output of our actions on the judgement of something we cannot see, touch, feel, hear, etc. Tell me how that makes sense? And then the question comes to: “Well then where does morality come from?” I feel like a lot of people, especially Christians these days will state that in order for there to be a sense of good and evil, that standard must come from a source that is not of this world, as this standard is “too holy” or whatever to come from humans, as we all would just destroy each other.
Now I don’t think that questions of morality should stop there and we decide to either believe in a higher power or not and decide whether or not there is a sense of good and evil. But this is how I look at the question beyond this common stopping point:
1st, let’s just boil it down to just good and bad.
2nd, humans follow the statements of other humans either from the past or present.
3rd, the statements come from an idea.
4th, ideas are constructed in a human brain, and that brain can be inspired by something externally or have some genuine inspiration.
5th, man makes law based on bad things that happen.
The question for me when I follow this line of thinking comes down to, “Why can’t the idea of good and bad come from the events that happen?”
If i were to do something that is generally accepted by everyone, that would be perceived as a good thing. And if I were to do something that does harm or causes discomfort, that is interpreted as bad. Fair? And then everything outside of this standard that happens to people is simply just shit that happens. So the line of thinking when it comes to judging an action would look like this: If Little Timmy lied to his mother about stealing from the cookie jar, did this benefit everyone? No. It doesn’t benefit the mother, she had a reason for keeping Timmy from the cookie Jar (either way, Timmy taking it from the cookie jar does harm to his mother’s intentions for the cookies, causing a tension. Then lying about it creates a discrepancy or a distortion in the cold hard fact of what happened). Then I ask, Well, so it didn’t benefit everyone, and it didn’t benefit his mom. But it at least benefited Little Timmy, doesn’t that make it good. No.
Again the rules for morality without an omniscient Judge would be just as simple as this: If an event happens, one must ask, was this beneficial? If yes you must ask, was the benefit limited to a number of people, or is it beneficial to everyone. If it is not beneficial to everyone. You gotta ask: Did this cause harm or tension somewhere? If yes then it would be deemed bad by someone. And if not then it is just some shit that happened.
Does this make sense or am I just spitting out shit?
