Thread: Understanding, Not Forgiveness

It is insensible to judge a man’s value by any actions he may take.

Surely there is nothing good about a murder, but who are we to decide that the murderer is evil? Simply because of the suffering we experience as a result of the bloodshed? We, as a society (since society is inevitable), must learn to see past the exterior, and focus on the important qualities that lie within, and can truly shed a light. That would be a person’s intentions. How they, themselves, feel about what they are doing, in their own world. To say that someone did no wrong is not necessarily to say that you agree with their choices.

If a man truly believes that an action is the right thing to do, then it would truly be wrong to not take that action, regardless of how horrific it may seem in everyone else’s eyes. To live according to yourself is the most important thing.

It is perfectly natural for a victim to initially reject any conclusion that denies some form of comfort to the victimized. To have no one to blame, no one to attack, and nobody to comfort us is unacceptable in a time of distress and delusion.

But as humans, we were all born with the ability to conceive and conspire towards goals that surpass our simple instincts, and our ability to contain and disregard those instincts provides us with opportunity that most individuals allow to simply slip through their fingers, through fear, and through confusion, sprung up by the result of a pursuit for happiness in a sort of artificial manner, in which we have come to know as “conformity”.

To condition yourself to go against your own harmless will in order to retain the symmetry of a clutter is pure foolishness.

There is no action a man can take that he does not take by choice. And no matter what, that choice will always derive from a feeling of rightfulness, whether it be a decision to rape a nine year old girl, or to donate a particularly high amount of money to a charity. So, in reality, no one is truly a “bad person”. It is simply impossible, it is a law of nature. Temporary anger is insensible, but understandable. Grudges are pure madness.

Of course, it may be necessary for a criminal to be punished, but one must ask himself if the man truly deserves to be punished. We must learn, through out own intuition, to differentiate the principals of ethicality form those of morality. The two are most definitely on complete separate spectrums.

We must learn to take truth over ease, to take full advantage of our strength, and to present ourselves as the superior species that we are capable of becoming. As of now, we have never truly evolved, in terms of our perception.

All of this may be difficult, but it is essential for obtaining genuine happiness. When has any sort of fortune in life come with even relative ease? It takes strength, and we mustn’t search for the strength in friendship, in family, in love, or in god.

The true strength lies only in ourselves.

If it is insensible to judge a person by their actions, then what should we judge them by?

Should we judge them by their intentions? Intent has no purchase on the world without being physically enacted. Should we judge them by their spirit? How ephemeral and impossible, and most probably the provenance of some god. Should we not judge them at all?

There is an imaginary construct called Utopia, where a human being has no need for judgment, as they are whole, perfect, and rational creatures. Unfortunately, Utopia doesn't exist but in the dreams of philosophers and optimists. For reality does include choice, and choice does preclude harm. Not all choices are harmful, but all harm stems from a choice.

Human beings are physical constructs. If all judgments and morals mean nothing because they are negated by the "law of nature," in which men are blameless for all their actions since it's impossible to "prove" if they "deserve" to be punished for said actions, then let us allow that the "law of nature" upholds self-preservation from harm, and that self-preservation is the very basis of what might be termed primordial law.

So if one person physically harms another, then the other person, out of self-preservation, might judge and enact their "punishment" upon the attacker. If one person had an intent to harm another, but never physically acted upon it, then the other person would not be harmed, and would not need to enact their own violence out of self-preservation. They would not have to cast some sort of judgment on the situation, since there was no violent act.

Is this not proof that only physical actions can be judged? And is not judgment necessary in a non-Utopic society where people consciously choose to harm others? Because without judgment, without a basis for which people might be able to defend and preserve themselves from the harmful actions of others, there would be no life that is sacred or safe.

One might argue that a man may only judge his own actions himself. That he is the supreme being and ruler of his own state of existence. That argument only stretches as far as the physical boundaries of his own body. For humans, in their imperfection, DO create harm to the bodies of others. His supreme state of rule ends within his skin. Once his actions affect another being, he may not judge what harm he has created, since he did not feel that harm himself. His perceptions are limited and self-centered. He is not capable of experiencing the sensations of the human being he affected. If he were, then surely he would capable of no harm, for as Buddha said, "To harm another is to harm oneself."

So, as long as a human being exists only within themselves without action or contact with other beings, will they ever be able to truly live as an entity that requires no judgment, conformity, ethic or moral social requirements, or law. If humans should evolve to the point of omniscience, where one and all are combined, then the world shall be without harm or the need to protect oneself against it. But as human beings exist in and of the world, they must interact with it and themselves. That is why they are imperfect beings which require self-preservation, and by extension, judgment.

Them there's my thoughts on the subject.