GOOD OR EVIL

Principles create rules, for example, the principle of objectivity creates the rule to be objective. While a rule-based system is a rule. But how can we say that objectivity is good in principle or as a rule to be moral? Virtue ethics? 

Socrates describes the character of a moral agent as a driving force for ethical behavior and is used to describe the ethics of Socrates (469 BC – 399 BC) was one of the first Greek philosophers that encouraged both scholars and the common citizen to turn their attention from the outside world to the condition of humankind. In this view, knowledge having a bearing on human life was placed highest, all other knowledge being secondary. Self knowledge was considered necessary for success and inherently an essential good. A self-aware person will act completely within his capabilities to his pinnacle, while an ignorant person will flounder and encounter difficulty. To Socrates, a person must become aware of every fact (and its context) relevant to his existence, if he wishes to attain self-knowledge. He posited that people will naturally do what is good if they know what is right. Evil or bad actions are the result of ignorance. If a criminal was truly aware of the intellectual and spiritual consequences of his actions, he would neither commit nor even consider committing those actions. Any person who knows what is truly right will automatically do it, according to Socrates. While he correlated knowledge with virtue, he similarly equated virtue with joy. The truly wise man will know what is right, do what is good, and therefore be happy. Knowledge is divine truth. Thus ethics would be based on knowing the self and the divine that created you in Jungian terms. Thus Socrates was claiming morality. In this sense, Socrates was like the Buddha. Socrates to me was a mystic.

Aristotle (384 BC – 323 BC) was more scientific in his analysis, he posited an ethical system that may be termed "self-realizationism." In Aristotle's view, when a person acts in accordance with his nature and realizes his full potential, he will do good and be content. At birth, a baby is not a person, but a potential person. To become a "real" person, the child's inherent potential must be realized. Unhappiness and frustration are caused by the unrealized potential of a person, leading to failed goals and a poor life. Aristotle said, "Nature does nothing in vain." Therefore, it is imperative for people to act in accordance with their nature and develop their latent talents in order to be content and complete. Happiness was held to be the ultimate goal. All other things, such as civic life or wealth, are merely means to the end. Self-realization, the awareness of one's nature, and the development of one's talents is the surest path to happiness. Here is more about Maslow's idea and how to reach it with rationality.

These are good if obtained in a good manner, happiness is achieved, and more Socrates was talking of a self-transcendence when such importance decreases and forms such a pyramid. Yet again Socrates was talking about self-transcendence, which in the end fulfills virtue ethics. Transpersonal psychology, which is a school of psychology that integrates the spiritual and transcendence, discusses this as it integrates transcendental aspects of the human experience with the framework of modern psychology. It is also possible to define it as a "spiritual psychology". The Transpersonal has been defined as "experiences in which the sense of identity or self extends beyond (trans) the individual or personal to encompass wider aspects of humankind, life, psyche or cosmos"

Stoicism, such as Aristotl,e is more a psychological philosophy The Stoic philosopher  Epicetus posited that the greatest good was contentment and serenity. Peace of mind, or Apatheia, was of the highest value; self-mastery over one's desires and emotions leads to spiritual peace. The "unconquerable will" is central to this philosophy. The individual's will should be independent and inviolate. Allowing a person to disturb the mental equilibrium is in essence offering yourself in slavery. If a person is free to anger you at will, you have no control over your internal world, and therefore no freedom. Freedom from material attachments is also necessary. If a thing breaks, the person should not be upset but realize it was a thing that could break. Similarly, if someone should die, those close to them should hold to their serenity because the loved one was made of flesh and blood destined to death. Stoic philosophy says to accept things that cannot be changed, resigning oneself to existence and enduring rationally. Death is not feared. People do not "lose" their life, but instead "return", for they are returning to God (who initially gave what the person is as a person). Epictetus said difficult problems in life should not be avoided but rather embraced. They are spiritual exercises needed for the health of the spirit, just as physical exercise is required for the health of the body, and it also seems in this sense to be like Buddhism, and is quite a psychological argument again. 

 

The ego is a servant and I am the leader. I am in control of it and it's demanding, it's cravings, it's habits. And I will let it not demand, command, and rule my life. It will be my assistant for my own success

 

Existentially - Pain and fear were to be avoided. Living was essentially good, barring pain and illness.

Death was not to be feared. Fear was considered the source of most unhappiness. Conquering the fear of death would naturally lead to a happier life. Epicurus reasoned if there was an afterlife and immortality, the fear of death was irrational. If there was no life after death, then the person would not be alive to suffer, fear, or worry; he would be non-existent in death. It is irrational to fret over circumstances that do not exist, such as one's state in death in the absence of an afterlife. Which is also from a psychological standpoint. The important point to haven’t lived morally is to be silent and piece with your spirit and thus not suffer pain through such a process of discovering and living the divine, you can win immortality as you live according to the divine inside, as a result,t you have jo,y piece and true LOVE

Deontological ethics or deontology is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules. It is sometimes described as "duty" or "obligation" or "rule"-based ethics because rules "bind you to your duty." Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons. First, Kant argues that to act in the morally right way, people must act from duty (deon). Second, Kant argued that it was not the consequences of actions that make them right or wrong but the motives of the person who carries out the action.

Kant's argument that to act in the morally right way one must act purely from duty begins with an argument that the highest good must be both good in itself and good without qualification

Such rules in Utilitarianism, which is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing happiness and reducing suffering. The two most influential contributors, therefore, in Classic Utilitarianism are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. John Stuart Mill in his book Utilitarianism, stated, "In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as one would be done by, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality." According to Bentham and Mill, utilitarianism is hedonistic only when the result of an action has no decidedly negative impact on others. It is now generally taken to be a form of consequentialism, although Anascombe first introduced that term it was to distinguish between "old-fashioned utilitarianism" and consequentialism. In utilitarianism, the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, although there is debate over how much consideration should be given to actual consequences, foreseen consequences, and intended consequences. In A Fragment on Government, Bentham says, "It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong

                                                                                                                                

Yet I believe in Christianity, both are achieved as a morality, and if you remain moral. Yet thus, Virtue ethics can tell us what is good or evil as we meet the divine in us and meet all such requisites and principles to create rules from how we will act according to both Deontological and Utilitarianism as we follow such ethics to right or wrong. If everybody was truly Christian, they would truly be happy as he reached the maximum of his beauty. It is the Spirit that divine good our self-knowledge, that the divine put in us. The battle that humans face internally to have peace with themselves in the internal self, letting go to the truth, the good, or choosing evil, the flesh. In Jungian terms, the individual is created to find himself the divine self ultimately, as is destined to have joy and peace in himself, and to emerge such positive qualities to others.

Otherwise, without knowing the self, we are lost, excluding the divine in us makes us act like animals and worse than animals. Science is there to make us virtuous and help us explore the beauty of the divine principles that create such material principles as the Law of Gravity in the end it just can not derive ethics which whether moral or not the same ethics can not be divine as morality can be seen in a divine universal sense such as the Platonic form or choose to be postmodernism rather than attach an Integral philosophy and choose post postmodernism and so rather choose post modernity relativism – ethics due to culture and pragmatic evolution but which there is no biological existence in them no search for meaning thus it is either right or wrong. If we exclude the divine in us, we can say that killing someone is ethical, we start arguing for argument's sake in search of the absurd, and to kill someone or not to kill becomes absurd. Yet again, the law of attraction is the name given to the belief that like attracts like and that by focusing on positive or negative thoughts, one can bring about positive or negative results. Thinking positively even if things come negatively, you will see those things positively and as a definition, what is negative negative thus does not exist such as evilness does not exist as St Agustine says total evilness is self destructive and thus if Satan goes total evil he destroys himself nihilates himself. Thus, if neither Satan is total evil nor human, and it is better to be positive and always become more positive to achieve peace – to achieve evil is something you can not achieve on earth and perhaps only in hell, and yet that is a Lose/Lose paradigm and it is evilness on yourself. While evilness destroys peace and love, whether you believe in Satan as an atheist or as a theist. This fact that man can not reach total evilness leads me to the fact to conclude that man is born to be good - but to be good you need to know the biological question that ethics thus not give it is an internal search and an encounter with the divine that gives it in spirituality as Jung asserted.