How do we know if something is moral or immoral? we feel a reaction to it, or it's consequences.
Where do these feelings come from? Our brains.
Where do our brains come from? Same thing that the rest of us came from, our genes.
Where do our genes come from? Our parent's genes.
Where do their genes come from? Their parent's genes.
On what basis did our ancestors get to produce the line of offspring that led to us? That they were able to do so and those who did not hadn't.
You probably get the rest of the reasoning from here, so...
The meaning of life is to increase the total amount of genes identical to your own that will exist in organisms after you die, and to increase the total amount of genes identical to your own that will exist in each of the organisms that share genes in common with you who will exist after you die.
Basically, life is about genes, not people, people are merely the expressions of genes in an environment, vehicles that serve as vectors for the genes in the purpose of serving the goal of their own propagation, people are essentially "teams" of genes working together for the purpose of seeking the chance to propagate copies of themselves into new organisms, or to aid organisms who are likely to to have identical genes on their "team".
What is most commonly considered moral also happens to be most conducive to the increasing of gene copies among a population, what is most commonly considered immoral also happens to be most counterproductive to this end, this is no coincidence, it is evidence that evolution is not only the source of our morality, but the determinant factor in the nature that morality takes among a people.
You can thank Darwin and Mendel and Hamilton and Dawkins and Watson and Crick for all this, the discovery of the mechanisms by which Good and Evil are determined.
Now even an atheist can have a claim to some "objective morality" (even though it isn't objective, and inherently cannot be so).
An atheist can claim to have some higher power to draw their moral judgments from, at least.
Also this is a great argument for why ideas that get called things like antisemitism, racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc. are all morally justifiable stances, in the philosophy of a gene-centric view of morality, they are all morally good things to be, as they are beneficial traits for the preservation and propagation of genetic traits, especially the recessive ones, which evolution gives a higher priority to for obvious reasons (because they are more vulnerable to being bred out of a population).
[ + ] s23erdctfvyg
[ - ] s23erdctfvyg 1 point 1.7 yearsAug 24, 2022 14:26:36 ago (+1/-0)
Evil is the pursuit of desire over survival.
Simple as.
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 24, 2022 14:40:20 ago (+0/-0)
Does living within the process of dying need to pursue anything to survive; or does it adapt to origin to grow life while dying?
What if good vs evil represents wanting vs not wanting suggested information; while ignoring the need to adapt to perceivable inspiration? What if living within the process of dying represents being resistance within temptation; hence the struggle to stay alive?
[ + ] FacelessOne
[ - ] FacelessOne 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 24, 2022 19:59:50 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 [op] 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 24, 2022 22:56:20 ago (+0/-0)*
It's like you think I'm living a life of reckless hedonism, I'm not.
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 24, 2022 14:35:23 ago (+0/-0)
KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists". Living within the process of dying implies perceiving within perceivable. As for how...through life being moved from inception towards death.
MOR'AL, adjective [Latin moralis, from mos, moris, manner.] - "relating to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other". That implies that moral or immoral represents ones choice to want or not want the moralism others suggest.
Meanwhile; choice exists at the center of balance aka in-between need (perceivable) and want (suggested). In other words...choice represents the response-ability within perceivable balance; while being tempted to ignore this for suggested choices.
Breathing...moral (want) or immoral (not want)?
Thirst...moral (want) or immoral (not want)?
Hunger...moral (want) or immoral (not want)?
Wait a while and it turns out that suggested moralism (want) ignores perceivable need to adapt.
One represents the reaction (living) within an enacting system (process of dying); hence ones senses being able to perceive (reaction) perceivable (enacting).
GEN aka an ongoing generator (process of dying) causing temporary reactors (living) within itself.
OFF (from) SPRING (to vegetate and rise out of the ground; to begin to appear). That implies transmutation of ingredient (living) out of base (dying).
In other words...if form (life) within flow (inception towards death); then flow to form (inception); form within flow (life) and form to flow (death). Basic alchemy.
Aka wanting vs not wanting suggested information; while ignoring the need to adapt to perceivable inspiration.
a) the partial (perceiving) cannot define the meaning of the whole (perceivable); one can only grow comprehension about what all perceivable means temporarily.
b) growth (living) implies within loss (dying); hence temporary increase of partial within whole. It's the whole (energy) which uses the partial as internal balance (loss/growth) for self sustenance.
c) the suggested amount of genes tempts one to ignore the only one generator (process of dying) for everything reacting within (living).
d) as for the why of energy and everything within...self sustenance.
If all represents one in energy; then all already exists at this moment (um) as either form (living; growth; resistance) or flow (dying; loss; velocity) aka either partially at the center or as the whole surrounding it.
Consider impression (perceivable) towards compression (comprehension) for either expression (growth) or repression (loss)...depending on choice of adaptation aka need (growth) or want (loss).
What you suggest represents SOCI'ETY, noun [Latin societas, from socius, a companion] - "the union of a number of rational beings"; which the parasitic few suggest as e pluribus unum (out of many; one); hence utilizing the "united" states; "united" nations; european "union" etc.
What this tempts one to ignore is U'NITY, noun [Latin unitas.] - "the state of being one; oneness" aka being ONE (perceiving) within ONEness (perceivable) aka partial within whole; ingredient within base; choice within balance; growth within loss; temporary within ongoing; differentiation within sameness. The parasitic few corrupted the latter into diversity for equality; as to tempt the many to ignore being diverse (living) within equal (process of dying).
Each one of the many is being tempted by suggested collectivism to bind themselves together within a chain of command (as followers under leaders) aka the many under the few; while ignoring that each one (perceiving) exists at the center of everything (perceivable).