Having sight amongst the blind.

One of my favorite schools of philosophy is Ethics.

For those who don't know.

www.britannica.com...

Ethics, also called moral philosophy,  the discipline concerned with what is morally good and bad, right and wrong. The term is also applied to any system or theory of moral values or principles.
How should we live? Shall we aim at happiness or at knowledge, virtue, or the creation of beautiful objects? If we choose happiness, will it be our own or the happiness of all? And what of the more particular questions that face us: is it right to be dishonest in a good cause? Can we justify living in opulence while elsewhere in the world people are starving? Is going to war justified in cases where it is likely that innocent people will be killed? Is it wrong to clone a human being or to destroy human embryos in medical research? What are our obligations, if any, to the generations of humans who will come after us and to the nonhuman animals with whom we share the planet?

We live in a world governed by materialism and division. Humanity has been slaves to both of these since the better part of its recorded existence. For many accepting responsibility regarding acts of freewill has never been conceived or thought out; for every human has the ability to make decisions that hold great significance on all. Idealists, realists, artisans, moralists, and countless others have left their mark on humanity through the ages through innovation, invention, creation, ideas, and many others that have came in form of art, writing, sciences, spirituality, and countless other mediums.

When I look through history, I often question if these humans knew the impact that their creations would leave on humanity, if they still would do the same thing.

An example is how Alfred Noble created dynamite. Dynamite has many uses that are beneficial to mankind, but has been used destructively throughout history. The same can be said about Thomas Edison. The creation of the light bulb allowed illumination of many homes, streets, industrial facilities, schools, etc, etc. Thomas Edison's creation has also resulted in massive photo pollution throughout the world disrupting natural habitats and having effects on human development.

This concept applies to those who created religion, psychiatry, superior ethnicity, and other human made concepts which divide humans.

In my belief, the blind of this world do not ask this simple ethical question.

When these ideas and sciences were created, did those who created them create them to serve themselves or humanity? Furthermore, if indeed it was made to serve humanity, did they fully calculate the impact that it would have the future of the world?

Would these same people if they came to see their impact on the future be willing to hold themselves accountable?

The people with sight in the world ask this question (Or a variation of it). Those who have vision think before they subscribe themselves to an idea. Often times people say it is to be awake as relation to have sight. but I have a different view. We are all awake, yet blinded by our own egos and beliefs. Metaphorically the blind will unknowingly walk through shark infested waters bleeding, and not know until it is too late.

But for those who aren't blind. It is a painful process (Often depressing, despairing, and traumatizing) to watch humanity blindly walk into these waters and attempt to drown others in a needless rat race for things that have no meaning.


TL;DR

My first question is simple, and does not require an answer. For the blind in the world, where the value and concept of human life is measured by human made materials, ideals, morals, conceived wealth, and countless others. Do you as a person of vision have the responsibility to give sight to the blind, regardless of the cost yourself, or is it the responsibility for the blind to find this vision for themselves, or a mix of both.

How far are you willing to go. Does having vision give you this responsibility?

My second question is simple, and does not require an answer. Do you hold yourself accountable to the impact you have on other humans and humanity. For if each second of life is infinitely worth more then all the money and material in the world, then each second of human on human interaction is equally significant; regardless of size.

Food for thought.

reply to post by brojose


Really great write up here. Good read and important questions one should consider.

It takes all kinds, some bring solutions, others bring only problems. need brings invention and invention offers opportunity, good or bad, what do you do with it? an apple computer makes billionaires, educates many, and steals identification. An inital need for a product not always displays it's end result or evil intent, but bad people do bad things with good potiental....humans always screw it up...

reply to post by brojose


Great post my friend, I agree with everything you said 110%. S&F

One thing I found interesting was this part.

When these ideas and sciences were created, did those who created them create them to serve themselves or humanity? Furthermore, if indeed it was made to serve humanity, did they fully calculate the impact that it would have the future of the world?

Great question and one people should definitely ask themselves. Obviously when you look throughout history where there have been countless wars and devastation while religions have entire temples dedicated to them which take thousands of man hours to make and huge amounts of money to build, they possess ornate and priceless artifacts and sculptures dedicated to them.

We see who has benefited within this world of suffering, religion and its teachings. Most all of religion, especially the most popular ones, are lies perpetrated and preserved throughout history to mentally enslave us so that the few at the top can benefit off of that slavery. They have been very successful so far in carrying out their plans.

Albert Einstein's work lead to developments in creating the atomic bomb. It was not his aim, and when it was explained to him how that was happening (that the Germans were doing it), he replied , Daran habe ich gar nicht gedacht (I had not thought of that)".
He had been exploring the unknown without an idea of how his discoveries could lead to destruction.
Our guesses about what others feel, intend, and are motivated by tend to be limited to our own experience.

He made attempts to right this, in a letter to Roosevelt about the Germans developing the nuclear bomb, but that just led to spurring the Americans to do the same. At the end of his life he said, "Had I known that the Germans would not succeed in developing an atomic bomb, I would have done nothing."

Many inventors ran into the same problem: Kamran Loghman, the inventor of pepper spray, had not foreseen pepper spray attacks at UC Davis a few years back.
Alfred Noble, the inventor of dynamite, didn't get to see the destruction it caused in WWI, but his aim originally was to bring peace with it- he believed it would help governments achieve peace through deterence. (hence the Noble Peace prize).

The problem with being caught up in questions of ethics is that very often, even very concentrated effort to do good in the long run can still take an unexpected turn. All the brain power, vision, imagination, and calculated analysis still doesn't pierce the future. The desire to control the future is a source of depression, frustration, and all that.

I find myself objecting, also, to the claim that so many are "blind"... and you are not? Einstein was blind... should you have "woken him up"? That is your dillema? ?

You refered to "human made ideals, morals" as a source of this lack of vision... did you ever stop to question your own morals and ideals ? Ask youself- am I human? So... this vision I have of good and evil in the world- is it perhaps a human created set of morals and ideals?
Or did you just assume you have THE sacred knowledge?

What about the limits of your vision? Does a thing which causes the death of many see as far as the vision that human beings are too numerous on this planet (or in a specific area for the available resources) so the catastrophy may have the side effect of being beneficial to humans in the long run?
If you lived at the time of Hitlers childhood, and saw a time traveller try to kill him as a toddler- what would all this wonderful sacred vision and analysis tell you of that event?


I am thinking of some story I've been told:

There is a Chinese story of a farmer who used an old horse in his fields. One day, the horse escaped into the hills and when the farmer's neighbors sympathized withthe old man over his bad luck, the farmer replied, ’‘Bad luck? Good luck? Who knows?" A week later, the horse returned with a herd of horses from the hills, and the neighbors congratulated the farmer on his good luck. His reply was, "Good luck? Bad luck? Who knows?"

Then, when the farmer's son was attempting to tame one of the wild horses he fell off its back and broke his leg. Everyone thought that was bad luck. Not the farmer, whose only reaction was, "Bad luck? Good luck? Who knows?”

Some weeks later, the army marched into the village and conscripted every able-bodied youth they found. When they saw the farmer's son with his broken leg, they let him off. Now, was that good luck or bad luck? Who knows?

Everything that seems, on the surface, to be bad luck may be good luck in disguise. And everything that seems fortunate may not be as it seems.

Good and evil is like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder. Perception rules these ideas. The same goes for right and wrong. However, truth and false are not govern by perception, for something that is true is, and or is not, and that is fact. For example, do humans have what we consider as a brain, which we known is, so that makes it true! Cannabis is bad, is based on my perception, and cannot be determined to be true or false, neither right nor wrong, no matter what studies are done to prove the statements validity! So ethical thing, meaning right thing, to do situations is based on personal and/or the majorities perception! So, live as you fit, but know others will deal with you as they fit!

Bluesma I find myself objecting, also, to the claim that so many are "blind"... and you are not? Einstein was blind... should you have "woken him up"? That is your dillema? ?

Before I choose the word blind, I considered asleep, unaware, and insane. In fact, the title of this thread was originally titled "Having sanity in an insane world." I changed it to blind because someone with vision understands the importance of human life, which this world and humanity severely lacks. Being unaware of something doesn't change accountability in many cases, and sleeping through this sort of thing? That's too cliche.

Let me explain this a different way.

One moment of Human Life > All materials and wealth in the world.
Two human lives > One human life

Japan wasn't going to surrender after both bombs were dropped, only after the Soviets invaded Manchuria was it considered.

August 6th, 1945. Hiroshima.
August 9th, 1945. Nagasaki, and declaration of war from the Soviets.
August 14th, 1945. Emperor Hirohito publicly announces his intent to surrender of radio.
August 15th, 1945. Military coup lead by Major Kenji Hatanaka results in seizure of the Imperial Palace of Japan, burning down of prime ministers residence.
September 2nd, 1945. Formal surrender of Japan to Allied powers.

The US had been stockpiling chemical weapons, and was prepped to do a mainland invasion if necessary. If there was a mainland invasion the losses with the Japanese would have been in the millions, and tens of thousands (If not more) of Americans would have died.

I can't answer your question if Einstein was blind or had sight. War is a terrible thing. I do not condone what either side did in war, the atrocities are unfathomable. If you look at Operation Paperclip and see the horrific things America brought back from the Nazis (MK Ultra, war criminals, etc, etc) perhaps in the eyes of many those men involved should have been tortured to death.

If dropping the bomb on Nagasaki or Hiroshima would end the bloodshed and result in less causalities due to an invasion, then I would (With great sorrow) give the order myself.

There is no dilemma. I cannot go back in time and fix what I believe to be wrong with history. I can only learn from the past, apply to my present life, and hopefully make the world a better place. I do not contemplate time travel or changing history. It's not possible. It doesn't interest me.

You refered to "human made ideals, morals" as a source of this lack of vision... did you ever stop to question your own morals and ideals ? Ask youself- am I human? So... this vision I have of good and evil in the world- is it perhaps a human created set of morals and ideals?
Or did you just assume you have THE sacred knowledge?

Brojosewhere the value and concept of human life is measured by human made materials, ideals, morals, conceived wealth, and countless others.

Value and concept of Human life > human made materials, ideals, morals, conceived wealth, concepts etc, etc.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Definition of concept.

1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion.
3. A scheme; a plan: "began searching for an agency to handle a new restaurant concept" (ADWEEK).

While not the secret (Because there is no secret to life in my mind) the concept of being human is too survive and reproduce. But the concept behind peaceful existence amongst human is less bland.

All of humanity must recognize the inalienable right of life of each human and inalienable concept of equality, and work to protect it. This applies to the future generations as well.

Human life is sacred. Only should life be taken if it will save the lives of others. Even then much thought and contemplation must take place before action is taken.

So... this vision I have of good and evil in the world- is it perhaps a human created set of morals and ideals?

There's two opposing forces in the universe that I consider truly not interchangeable.

Order and chaos.

In science.

Light and darkness.

Good and evil are human concepts, as are love and hatred, humorous and not humorous, etc, etc, . I could read off my whole post to someone who completely disagrees and be seen as the Satan, Dajjal, Loki, Enki, etc, etc; or someone who thinks I am a good person, a loving person, etc, etc. It doesn't change the fact that that is an individuals opinion.

Good and evil are dividing, and completely subjective to an individual.

This falls under the subjectivist fallacy, and holds no weight to me.

Or did you just assume you have THE sacred knowledge?

“The sacred knowledge” is something that people will always be looking for that they won't find (Many have fabricated this). I don't have sacred knowledge. I just recognize the immeasurable value of human life. Something that humanity needs to start doing if it wants to dig itself out of grave it's trying to bury itself in.

What about the limits of your vision? Does a thing which causes the death of many see as far as the vision that human beings are too numerous on this planet (or in a specific area for the available resources) so the catastrophy may have the side effect of being beneficial to humans in the long run

There are no limits to this vision. When you actually begin to see how precious and important life is, you can understand the sacrifices that must be made to protect it. You understand that many things have to change, and the system has to collapse in order to do it. Is it something I can do alone. No. But I know my value. I pride myself as being human. Being human makes worth infinitely more then all the material and wealth in the world (This is the birthright of all living humans), I know how that life is short, and rather than waste it trying to get ahead in a meaningless rat race, I take responsibility for the time I am given and apply it to ways to make the world a better place.

My actions, just as yours can have unfathomable impact on the world, regardless of size, they will always be significant. I hunger for knowledge and a means to help those suffering.

Humanity can in my opinion still sustain itself with the population at hand if changes are made in the near future. The changes that must be made are numerous and in all likelihood, will not happen.

It is often hard to tell the difference between man made disasters and natural ones in this day of age due to HAARP, and the other countries that have the same technology. Regardless, any human death will always be a tragedy.

If you lived at the time of Hitlers childhood, and saw a time traveller try to kill him as a toddler- what would all this wonderful sacred vision and analysis tell you of that event?

I would break down in tears at the sight of someone using violence to solve a problem that can be solved without it. I would have taken the time to stick it out with Adolf and help him get into/through art school. He was a far better artist then he was philosopher, politician, and military leader.

Take a look.

www.hitler.org...

reply to post by brojose


Great thread. Worthy of a lot more S&F than it has recieved so far.

The question I always ask myself is "Did I go to bed leaving the world a better place?"

reply to post by brojose


What I replied to specifically is

the notion that it is moral or ethic conscience which is “missing” or faulty in the individuals who have had the biggest impact on our sciences and arts.
That because people like Noble and Einstein had their discoveries and inventions later used for destruction by others, it means their ethical vision and priorities were not intact.

Their intents were to bring peace and aid man- to increase survival and lessen mortality rates. They did NOT do it for material wealth.
They DID ask themselves that question you point to!


My points were two fold-

One- Being unable to foresee future and predetermine the intents and choices of others in the future is not caused by faulty sense of ethics- it is the nature of human consciousness.
In that, you could say we are ALL blind then. No matter what great intents we have and how much effort we put into them.


Two- Your formula for ethical judgment is interesting, except that it doesn’t work in reality, where we have this lack of vision into future events and long term effect. (One moment of Human Life > All materials and wealth in the world.
Two human lives > One human life )



Apparently, I did not express myself clearly the first time, because much of what you responded had no relevance. I hope this is more clear.

Further thoughts to add- because of our lack of vision into the heads and hearts of others, we tend to assume others are very superficial. Being of double nationality, I hear from both sides claiming the other nation is superficial in values and motivations.
In both cases, they are mistaken. They simply only have access to superficial appearences of the other.
Cases which you may think are “just for material gain” may in actuality be sourced in a concern for life.


(ETA- My point with the "baby Hitler" question was that if you lived at the time of his childhood, you would NOT KNOW what he was destined to do later, and how many lives he would take....so seeing someone try to to take his, you would assume to be a meaningless act of destruction, with no ethical concerns underneath.... )

Another angle of this topic worth discussing is the underlying ethics of power.

When we speak of the misuse of atomic energy, or dynamite, we’re talking about sources of energy and power- that can be used in creative or destructive ways.

The conspiracy theorist will find this question ever at the base of their focus-
Should power be available to all, without discrimination?
Is there groupings of humans less fit to exercise power ethically than others?

-Some might say the less educated are not- they lack long term goals and focus.

-Some say the more educated are not- their long term focus means they will sacrifice immediate concerns and individual needs to the larger goals.

-Some say the religious are not – they will keep the power within a very small head and actively use it to keep the rest in ignorance and obedience.

-Some say the irreligious are not- they lack discipline and ability to restrain their egotistical appetites and desires.

Should great discoveries and inventions be kept secret, not revealed, to protect them from being used in destructive ways by individuals or groups who lack vision, education, emotional drive, self discipline, integrity…..

I don’t have the answer, though I find it an interesting question, especially on a conspiracy theory site!!!

reply to post by brojose

All of humanity must recognize the inalienable right of life of each human and inalienable concept of equality, and work to protect it. This applies to the future generations as well.

There are no limits to this vision. When you actually begin to see how precious and important life is, you can understand the sacrifices that must be made to protect it.

I love that you posted this topic brojose.

So basically if we all were to give up excess creature comforts (i.e. Xbox, ATVs & other toys, shopping just to shop, yearly vacation to Hawaii and the like), there would be enough for everyone in the world to have basic needs met. When one considers that which gives us our most intrinsic joy in life, it always comes back to family, friends and our relationships with other humans. In other words, if we ONLY had these things, and our basic needs were met, we would be eternally happy and fulfilled. The alternative of giving in to excess (how society functions today), means that some among us must suffer; and this route is essentially a false paradigm of joy. Our true joy comes from relationships and communicating with others, which is reciprocal; not from our relationship with things which are inanimate and fleeting at best.

Once upon a time I decided that we, as a species, were "committeed" to death. At every level, and in every capacity. So much red tape exists, that the end result in any endeavor takes much longer than is rational and/or necessary. . .just another example of how we, as humans, are not functioning at our highest level nor in a manner that efficiently serves all. Stepping away from the rampant consumerism, away from the need for "better, faster, more" would mean stepping back to a lifestyle that would seem foreign to many today.

The problem as I see it, is that many are still asleep; however they are ignoring the fact that in our chase for ever-evolving technology, we are losing something great in the translation. Our humanity.

reply to post by TDawgRex

The question I always ask myself is "Did I go to bed leaving the world a better place?"

This is how I endeavor to live my life as well. As long as I can look in the mirror and know this to be true, I am so deeply filled with joy it is more than enough. I have always subscribed to the belief that every single thing we do and say and think matters; and (to simplify) even if the ONLY thing one can accomplish in a given day is to make someone else smile? Then that is a day well lived.

This poem speaks to the philosophy I attempt to live by, and it has never left me wanting.
The Man In The Glass

reply to post by Bluesma

My point with the "baby Hitler" question was that if you lived at the time of his childhood, you would NOT KNOW what he was destined to do later

I would like to theorize that if we lived in such a world as the OP mentions, where ALL human life is precious, than said world might not create another being such as Hitler ever again.

To value life, meaning to really value each and every human, just and for no other reason than because they exist alongside us, means that we place their well being WAY above materialism and accumulation. If this is done, I believe it would circumvent the issues of those that would seek such control (as with Hitler) and greed - two segments of humanity that create much of the suffering in the world.

A more personal example, is that if I am angered, it is because I am triggered by something that I feel lacking within myself. If I am hurt, it is because of my own feeling of being less than the one offending. If these triggers were no longer relevant, as in living among a humanity that leaves no one behind, one that lifts people up, then hopefully no one would grow up to become a Hitler or any semblance thereof. Just think of the crime and violence that would cease worldwide in the absence of need for control and greed.

Must get some rest for now, but that was a very thought-provoking question indeed.