BLACK AND WHITE?

Now, there has been an ongoing discussion about this, not only in my head, but, also with other people as well.  The subject is about whether or not, there is truly a such thing as right or wrong in the world.  Every time I get philosophical, I touch on this subject, so bear with me if you've heard some of this before....

The idea first occurred to me, when I discovered what nihilism was.  Some philosophers believed that there is no such thing as right and wrong, because good and evil doesn't exist.  Good and evil, are establishments of religious programming that has occurred over such an expansive amount of time, that it has been woven into our fabric as people.  However, fundamentally, as basic as it gets, there is no such thing as right and wrong.  The very idea of right and wrong, imposes the idea of law, and in doing so, you travel down a rabbit hole of what a law is, and who feels worthy enough to establish that law to all of mankind.  Think Moses.  Mankind is a species however, much like apes and lions.  We are the top of the food chain, and to assume, we don't fall under the same umbrella, as humans, is an exercise in futility, just turn on a television.  I also once heard a theory stating, that humans don't formulate thought until, they learn how to speak, because once this happens, then they speak internally and hear internally.  Which in itself is a very very interesting thing, on the subject of religion.  So, if mankind never learned to speak, he ceases to think as much and becomes more instinctual, correct?  Instinct is not governed by thought, but rather, reaction.  Instinct is also not governed by any law either.  So by saying this, we are saying that we, at our base core, are basically instinctively driven animals.  According to nature, there is no right or wrong, there only exists, cause and effect.

Now, I always argue that in the absence of right and wrong, or good and evil, so to speak, we have replaced it with, popular opinion.  If we are to look at things currently, in humanity as a whole, then we would see that the "idea" of right and wrong, good and evil, is slowly being replaced by popular opinion.  We know this as political correctness, or what is acceptable and unacceptable.  This process is a way of domesticating humanity further, beyond law or religion, into acceptable behavior amongst other humans.  Which is interesting, because it becomes a sort of self-governing principle for mankind, in which we alienate people or shun people, for behavior we feel is not congruent with the whole.  So, the closest thing that exists next to actual right and wrong, is fair and unfair, which is what our justice system is loosely based on now.  Laws are not absolute, and act as guidelines for the justice system, to determine whether something is fair or unfair.  So the evolution from right and wrong is, and has been, taking place for quite some time.  Although, if we take an even further look into it, those powers that be, manipulate the system to obtain their own desires.  This puts us right back into the category of competitive animals, who thrive on instinct.  Though we speak and have evolved, and still are evolving, we are at our base non-reliant on good and evil as a guidance.  Though mankind has developed a system of checks and balances, to govern us as a whole, and maintain some sort of order, we still lean toward a survival above all mentality.  This way of thinking breaks us back down to our simplest form.

Now, if we are indeed, simply a higher level of animal, then, we must govern ourselves according to nature.  Now in nature the main principle that exists, is cause and effect or issue and result.  If a lion is hungry, it will chase a gazelle, and eat it with no regard for how the gazelle felt that day, whether the gazelle had a family, or a good job.  There is no remorse in nature.  Hence, why mankind has the ability to be ruthless, because, right and wrong does not exist in nature.  For instance, here in Texas, for about 2 solid months, it rained every day and even flooded some.  Meanwhile, California, is experiencing a drought.  Looking at that, one would say wow, that's not fair, but, nature simply responds to an issue.  I'm sure this could be explained scientifically, but "morally" no.  In nature, and science for that matter, cause and effect, or, issue and result, are king.  If there is an issue in nature, then there will be a result, whether favorable or not.  Much the same as cause and effect, if something happens to A, then B, is effected, whether that effect be positive or negative.  I read in The Prince by Machiavelli, that on a local level, there really is no need for law enforcement, because, people will solve it for themselves.  The people of said town can bring it out before the elders, and determine whether the occurrence was out of line or not.  However, on a broader scale, a ruler must maintain a full scale military to quell issues larger than local towns.  For instance, other countries or kingdoms, that have failed to reach an agreement and have dissolved into conflict.  This is how mankind works as well.  We have laws designed by man to act as checks and balances, and secondary to that, we have moral laws to govern our conscience, so that we reconsider our actions.  Lastly, we have our popular opinion law, that either embraces or shuns us, based on the viewpoint of our peers.  When all else fails, we are animals, beating our chests, showing our fangs, and thriving on instinct.  This is the final law of mankind, whether right or wrong, good or evil, just or unjust.

If we are in fact simply, JUST, animals, then that brings us to Darwinism.  The most popular thing people understand about Darwinism, is survival of the fittest.  Why?  Because it feeds into our animalistic appetites.  In this theory, we as humans evolve when necessary, much like the rest of nature.  For instance, the frogs that will switch genders, to survive in a single gender species, or, how grass will slowly grow thru the cracks in concrete over time.  Life will find a way.  Those who adapt, move forward, and, those who don't expire.  Survival of the fittest, however, has allowed for mankind to embrace it's highly selfish animal tendencies.  I say highly selfish, because, let's go back to the lion.  Lion catches gazelle, eats gazelle, shares with the rest of the pride, and tomorrow is a new day and a new hunt.  We, on the other hand, would most likely kill seven gazelles, eat half of one and stash the rest.  Fuck the pride.  As humans, our survival instinct, is much more selfish in nature because we become premeditative.  We see the pride of lions, with the one lion that has the crooked tail and a slight limp, being ostracized by the rest of the pride for protection of the pride itself, only to be mauled by a pack of hyenas, and we mimic this.  So, the element of Darwinism is there, and the evolution in mankind is always taking place, whether we deem it right or wrong.  We evolved our way of fighting, all the way to nuclear weapons, capable of destroying entire countries.  We don't use them, but, only because "popular opinion", believes that we should not.

So, there really is no right or wrong, and what exists in mankind's nature, is cause and effect in the absence of consequence based and moral law.  If a man kills another man, for whatever reason, we say he is wrong to take another man's life and he in turn loses his life for this.  However, is he really wrong for murder though?  Just because you or I, deem it as unjust and unwarranted, does that make him wrong?  Regardless of the reason, or mental status for that matter, that person in their own mind, may have felt they were doing the right thing.  What is wrong or right in one's mind, may not echo in the mind of another, as right.  As individuals, we determine on a personal level what is wrong and right.  We don't murder, due to consequence, morals, religion, or persecution from our peers, however, in the absence of all that we are justified, no?  If you were in the wild, and came across a man untouched by civilization and he killed another man, would you judge him the same as joe blow from down the street?  Probably not.  This is proof that our laws of right and wrong, are man made and manufactured to curb the animal within.  However, we don't diminish the animal, we modify and adapt, to continue to thrive as animals in our current society that no longer embraces the animal within.  It is evolution still.

So, eventually people will come to understand fallibility in all law, and this will result in chaos in some degree.  The reason being that, humanity will get to a point where their actions are causing them to question the validity of the laws put in place.  I feel that due to science's advancement in healthcare and technology, the evolution of the body will require the evolution of the mind, in order to understand it.  This is going to result in a major shift in thinking for all of mankind, and they will turn to the one absolute left, and that will be science.  Although, scientific laws may be bent, or circumnavigated, they are very rarely broken, and if broken, they are usually explained via science, or math, etc.  As I stated before, this will cause a shift and bring about chaos in the mentality of mankind, because, we will start to question many things like laws, morals, and such, based on whether or not it is scientifically applicable.  This will change society, the way we operate, and the way we view everything as a whole.  However, in nature, despite chaos, order has arisen.  Chaos theory, which was sort of derived from nihilism does not deny nature in favor of chaos, it denies static equilibrium, in favor of progress.  If, you take the big bang or a butterfly's metamorphosis, for example, you see that the chaos is a necessary step in the evolutionary process.  In fact, chaos theory suggests, that both order and chaos exist at the same time and are interchangeable.  This is evident, in both biology, and physics.  The way that order becomes the result of chaos is due to a focused concentrated energy, that brings about order.   This, is what will save humanity, a focused concentrated energy on what is true, and real.

In summation, my thinking is that the next evolutionary step, will be as mankind embraces the sciences, it abandons the idea of an individual animal or species, and begins to see mankind, as an overall organism.  One consciousness.  In absence, of moral law, religion, and even some judicial laws, it will cause chaos and turmoil in the state of mankind's thinking, and cause us to focus our energy in the thought of unification of all.  This would happen faster due to the discovery of an alien life form, or the introduction of artificial intelligence in the form of robotics.  This would actually kick us down the food chain a notch, and force into a mode of self-preservation, but as a species, as a whole.  Once humanity, could learn to see themselves as an organism living off of a host, which is probably the most basic scientific idea that exists, on the subject of mankind, then we would understand that preserving the host, ensures our longevity.  Unless, we are a disease, then we will bring this current host to near extinction and find a new host....which is probably closer to the truth.  Right or wrong, does not exist, and is not absolute in any one mind, because nobody has gotten it right or wrong, thus far.  What we need to do is focus on now, dissolve the ideas of right and wrong, embrace the ideas of fair and unfair, believe in ourselves, believe in each other as components of the same organism, and, bring our civilization back from the brink of extinction.  Why?  Because, what we do now, has a ripple effect further down the timeline, and we've already felt the effects of previous blunders.  We owe it future generations, to get something right, so that they can progress even further and not resort to the animalistic ideals that trapped us for so many years in the first place.   -  925