Every leftist, Republican, liberal, Democrat, Libertarian, Communist, Socialist, RINO, Neocon, Capitalist, NAZI, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslem, Satanist, occultist, witch etc. etc., will declare something, in their view, as “good”. In whatever language, the word “good” is indicative of something (material, behavioral or ideological) that is desireable, commendable, worthy, pleasant and acceptable. By virtue of this fact, that which is undesireable, condemnable, unworthy, unpleasant and unacceptable, must be “bad” or “evil”. The word “bad” doesn’t always have a moral connotation to it where “evil” definitely does. So for this discussion let’s view “evil” as the opposite of “good”.

Now, let’s consider the following; some people believe that abortion is good, and some people believe it is evil. There are those who believe multiple gods are good, and there are those that believe that is evil. There are those who believe that spending more money that you have and going into debt is good, and there are others who believe that is evil!

So, where are we going with this? It’s obvious that there is a major disparity between one group’s sense of what is good and another group’s sense of what is evil. Those who view one as good will be inclined to view the opposite as evil, and vice versa. Now if the idea or act is not particularly fundamental to either party and/or the survival of society, then toleration becomes a way of life. But, what if it is a fundamental difference in one’s understanding, and therefore, they find the other pary’s position as totally unacceptable, and even threatening?

It’s clear that this dilemma can, and likely will, lead to some sort of violence. The violence will be manifested either by government oppression, civil war, vigilantism, or political battles at the ballot box which is the most civilized way to exercise violence (disagreements). The bottom line is that for people to live peaceably together, they must be able to agree substantially on how they are to live together.

Sadly, there are people who want to force others to live their lifestyles, or at least accept those life styles without question or objection. This leads to another thought. Does history count for anything? If something happened yesterday that tells you that you do not want to go through that something again, is that history worth knowing and considering? Learning from mistakes must have some value, or else we must continue to repeat those mistakes.

If someone falls off the top of a building because there was no parapet wall, and they are seriously injured or die, then maybe it makes sense to mandate a parapet wall for any surface upon which people walk that is over 3′ off the ground or 5′ off the ground, or whatever makes empirical sense. If people have been electrocuted while standing on a ladder made of metal, then maybe mandating a fiberglass ladder for safety is a worthy endeavor.

These are just a couple of issues that would be likely accepted by all sides, because they are a physical safety issue with no moral behavior attached to them. But what about something a little more nuanced such as someone getting drunk and as a result acting erratically, and endangering other people’s lives? Might there be justification in keeping that person who has chosen to make a moral decision to reduce their judgment and physical reaction capabilities by drinking too much to be restricted from certain activities such as flying a plane full of people? If that person does fly that plane full of people while under the influence of alcohol, should they suffer any punishment, or should they be allowed to continue their behavior? What about if they crash the plane, but they survive – any punishment then?

That’s just one extreme example, but we can certainly come up with more everyday close to home issues. The prooblem is that in today’s society, “FACTS” have become irrelevant to many people, and therefore, they have allowed their feelings to guide their decision making instead! Now, can you think of anyone with whom you can share identical feelings on a multitude of issues? That’s not likely! Not only that, but people’s feelings can change on a moment’s notice! Therefore, in order to argue any point requires the use of facts in order to make an intelligent decision or evaluation. Bear in mind, the facts never change – the interpretation of them can.

As an aside, the word intelligent comes from two Latin derivatives; inter which means between, and the verb legare which means the ability to choose. (the key is giving oneself the ability) The literal definition of the word intelligent is the ability to choose between. If you operate on how you feel, then you can not make an intelligent decision because you are deciding based upon one view only which is your truth (fact). The key to being intelligent is to be able to choose between. Many times it is to choose between multiple ideas. This is why the President of the United States has a cabinet of advisors.

Our government, who wants us ingorant and easily manipulated, uses the media that it controls (FCC) to give us two choices – often referred to as a Hobson’s choice. This eliminates any possibility of an intelligent choice as well. So, we’ve been brought to either an emotional unintelligent response, or a Hobson’s choice. Neither option is acceptable to an inteligent person, but to a person who operates on feelings, they are quite amenable to such person. It makes deciding much easier, and the responsibility of thinking has been greatly reduced.

This brings us back to “FACTS”! Facts require you to think, and in this day and age, thinking is too painful for too many people. Let the politicians do the thinking for us, or the talking heads on the evening news, or the professors at the bought and paid for universities. This lax attitude toward thinking affects jury decisions in court cases, selection of political candidates, hiring decisions and so on.

After you consider what has been written herein, you will need to decide what ideas are good, and what ideas are evil. More importantly, you will need to determine what actions must be taken to establish what is good and erradicate that which is evil. May you find enough people to agree with your position to accomplish your objective. This writer hopes your choice and pursuit is of that which is truly good!

Pensiamento Peligroso