4 ms·

Good and evil are constructs in the realms of morals and ethics, which are also constructs produced by society. And so on. If you continue delving into these co

Good and evil are constructs in the realms of morals and ethics, which are also constructs produced by society. And so on. If you continue delving into these constructs, you will discover that the only ultimate truth is your firsthand emotional, physical, and mental experience. Yes, you can map these manifestations to those end-of-the-chain constructs, but does it make them true or real? Or are they merely your personal, fuzzy classifications based on your experience and programming? Viewed from this perspective, there is neither evil nor good indeed.

rwmj 3y ago
That's an absurdly reductionist viewpoint. You might as well say there are no people, only particular groups of molecules that can be fuzzily classified into humans.
- vernon99 3y ago
  It's reductionist, but what makes you say "absurdly"? It's a matter of personal choice which viewpoint to use, and I was just commenting on the original point and the viewpoint provided. I personally find this reductionism quite helpful in seeing through these layers of constructs and making it my own choice which ones to adopt, rather than simply accepting them all as given. Edit: typos
ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
subjectiveness across a large enough populace constitutes morality*, as much as those non-conformists may object * "according to who?" you may ask: well, according to the populace, ultimately the only measure that matters
fzeroracer 3y ago
Viewed from this perspective, reality itself is subjective. Math doesn't exist, neither does physics or anything else we assume grounds us in reality. It's a rejection of common reality and not worth engaging with because it's an argumentative dead end.
- vernon99 3y ago
  It's not binary; it is a gradient from actual perceived reality to very distant derivative concepts. For many people (e.g., those who do evil), these concepts obviously don't make sense, so I wouldn't even call it a "common reality." It's just a part of the subjective reality you belong to. If you choose to stay in your part of reality and not engage with those who are outside, that is your decision. It may be a dead end for you, but I'd also caution against generalizing.

rwmj 3y ago

That's an absurdly reductionist viewpoint. You might as well say there are no people, only particular groups of molecules that can be fuzzily classified into humans.

vernon99 3y ago
It's reductionist, but what makes you say "absurdly"? It's a matter of personal choice which viewpoint to use, and I was just commenting on the original point and the viewpoint provided. I personally find this reductionism quite helpful in seeing through these layers of constructs and making it my own choice which ones to adopt, rather than simply accepting them all as given. Edit: typos

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

subjectiveness across a large enough populace constitutes morality*, as much as those non-conformists may object * "according to who?" you may ask: well, according to the populace, ultimately the only measure that matters

fzeroracer 3y ago

Viewed from this perspective, reality itself is subjective. Math doesn't exist, neither does physics or anything else we assume grounds us in reality. It's a rejection of common reality and not worth engaging with because it's an argumentative dead end.

vernon99 3y ago
It's not binary; it is a gradient from actual perceived reality to very distant derivative concepts. For many people (e.g., those who do evil), these concepts obviously don't make sense, so I wouldn't even call it a "common reality." It's just a part of the subjective reality you belong to. If you choose to stay in your part of reality and not engage with those who are outside, that is your decision. It may be a dead end for you, but I'd also caution against generalizing.