From 1st principles:
Who/what am I?
Nothing special; neither more nor less than any other person.
Each of us is born then nurtured to some ill-defined state of independence; we may prosper and/or procreate, and sooner or later we all die. That's it, finito!
Is there any point? Well, my answer to that is: it depends.
On the one hand we have the spiritualists[1] who maintain that what one sees is not all there is; they maintain that there's more to a human than atoms; that there exist (immaterial) spirits which can outlast our 'Earthly' existence. The key word here is 'belief;' spiritualists 'believe[2]' in something for which there can be no proof (always 'only' IMHO, of course). We know about conception; sperm meets egg. We know about life, crap and corruption; the dead body decays or is cremated. There's nothing but inanimate atoms left over - except (perhaps!) for the spiritualists' immaterial 'something;' for such believers, the life they see may be preparation for 'something beyond' (or so I've heard they hope.) I am not one of these believers.
On the other hand (if we ain't got 'enduring, immaterial spirits'), whadda we got? Let's ask a typical cow, grazing on a lush-green Swiss alp (with a magnificent view; must be like being near Hans&Gerda's): "Moo!"
(You might think that asking a cow for the secret of life is a bit facile, but they enjoy an almost unbeatable advantage: they are in no way encumbered by any fake belief whatsoever. And they are totally innocent; who then better to ask? OK, the language is a bit hairy...)
My interpretation (and here thanks partly to Harvie Krumpet's statue-avatar); "Carpe diem! (Seize the day!)" - in plain text, enjoy every moment. We got here either partly or wholly by evolution starting out from some puddle of dirty water, whether we're all headed for individual and utter oblivion (my tip) or the spiritualists' something else is IMHO toadally® moot; it behoves us all to do our best - and to enjoy every moment of this life 'to the max.'
-=*=-
Running ahead of my story a bit, I have my own store of accumulated experience, from this I select 'valid/useful' constructs from the dross. I have so notionally constructed an own 'book of knowledge,' to which I've given the title 'Bringing up Baby.' One may make hay while the sun shines, but when one 'causes' a new life to begin, one takes on certain responsibilities.
From 'Bringing up Baby':
"Think!"
(OK, it's not mine, but it's not 'owned' by any 3rd either.)
"Start as you mean to go on."
"(Try to) get it right the first time!"
This last can be difficult; some people only seem able to learn by making mistakes. A slightly more benign form of this is "Learning by doing."
-=*=-
Early experience can leave the most indelible marks (and I do have a particular instance in mind), but do you remember the days of the old school yard? Did you meet there a liar, a petty thief - or a bully? Probably - or worse; you might'a been one or more of those. Here one must pause and ask: when does 'morality' kick in? (Tip: "Start as you mean to go on.")
We come to our 1st 'hinge-point,' also from 'Bringing up Baby': "Do no harm."
There is absolute validity in "0s and 1s," i.e. binary choices. Of course, life is not all 'black and white' but we can (and I occasionally do) make some 'non-nuanced' statements, and here is one: there is a difference between 'right' and 'wrong;' most people are aware of the difference, but some choose to be bad anyway.
Another thing. Associated with spiritualists comes (more or less) organised religion. I believe[2] both are on balance bad things (IMHO just superstitious nonsense); the 1st deriving from the fear of individual death and the 2nd preying (Haw!) on such fear; both can and often do lead to - shall we say 'aberrant?' - behaviour, or at least more negative than positive results. But the world is steeped in such spiritualists and religions, and what I'm aiming at here are 'the (Judeo-Christian) 10 commandments.' Other religions may have similar; if so I'm not aware of it and for my purpose here I don't need to be.
The point here is a formal system outlining an acceptable morality; I have developed my own to be independent of any religion. Ta ra!
The 'chezPhil morality'[3].
In a nutshell, it is wrong to lie, cheat, steal or murder.
If you have read it through, you might appreciate that it is based on self-interest, but it implies good news for 3rd parties. Following my morality would enable co-existing altruism and selfishness - not too bad, eh?
Here comes the particular instance mentioned earlier; when a sprog hears his/her first lie. Morally, life can be 'all down-hill' from there - unless the ground has been well-prepared, that is. There is (IMHO) an 'age of reason,' before which humans are (all too!) vulnerable to corruption. If a child remains protected during this time, s/he can grow to be 'normal,' if injured then (failing remedial action) most likely not. These ideas are better discussed in Thomas A. Harris "
I'm OK - You're OK" - anyone who doesn't have this book should get it and read it ASAP. But: if a child hears his/her 1st (deliberate!) lie from a parent (or 'prime carer'), s/he may very well 'fall apart' inside - it's that serious. As an aside here (but nevertheless of primary importance), no person before his/her own personal 'age of reason' should ever be 'loaded up' with any spiritualism/religious stuff. None at all until then (and better never); basta!
IMHO, most people know the difference between what's right and wrong, the problems all start when some, and it only takes a small few, ignore it.
Now, if 'simple' immorality was to be our only problem, we'd be relatively well off (one might'a thunk), but it's nothing like simple and not at all small-scale either; it's massive crime up to and including mass-murder, an' that for spoil. The prime example is the US' illegal invasion of Iraq (murder for oil) but similarly, the US 'conquest' of Afghanistan, and that 60-year long running, open-scab-sore on the Earth that is Israel - murder for land, wardah®. But don't get me wrong here: it's not 'the wo/man in the street' who's the problem, it's those ordering (and doing) the killings. Other wars in the last 60 or so years probably qualify as crimes too (i.e. Vietnam), but these recent ones incl. Israel are topical.
We in Aus are relatively well protected from knowledge of these crimes; our media (papers, radio, TV) do not give us all the truth; an fact far from it. Hence the modern characterisation of the '4th Estate' (incl. big bits'a the AusBC; boo! Hiss!) as the venal MSM. More of the multitudinous crimes we are not being made aware of are the massive rip-offs occurring in the resource (mining incl. oil) sector. Pure and simple, the mining entities are not paying us, we the people, our fair share. Through the process known as 'resource rent,' the mining entities retain the lion's share of mining proceeds (essentially pocketing the lot) - instead of paying us fair royalties. What the country gets out'a the mining boom is basically only the wages paid, some pitifully small licence-type fees and some company tax. Globalisation and commerce in general will get a mention later; it's enough here to say that we are caught up in a mean trickle-down scam full of dreadful consequences.
Whereas once it might'a been enough to wallow oblivious in this trickle-down (all the while being anaesthetised by 'cheap' baubles such as flat-screen TVs and/or iPods etc), there are two catastrophic barriers approaching; a) the limits of certain resources (if nothing else then land, wardah® - i.e. nourishment and a liveable environment), and 'the biggie,' the feared climate catastrophe, aka the greedastrophe®.
Although it is hardly 'big news,' the gross violations of moral rules are leading our world astray; such violations are the cause of almost every misery - and our whole world, daaarlings, is going down the greedastrophe® tubes; we have to do better. Stop the rip-offs, stop the killings: no war!
¡No more of the same!
-=*=-
Refs:
[1] spiritualism n. belief in, and supposed practice of, communication with the dead, esp. through mediums. spiritualist n. spiritualistic adj. [POD]
[2] Speaking for myself, when I write 'I believe' something, I will be using it as on balance, the sum of my (or others') experience supports this something - i.e. based on 'real-world' evidence (as opposed to airy-fairy nothing but wishes).
believe v. (-ving) 1 accept as true or as conveying the truth (I believe it; don't believe him). 2 think, suppose. 3 (foll. by in) a have faith in the existence of (believes in God). b have confidence in (believes in homoeopathy). c have trust in as a policy (believes in telling the truth). 4 have (esp. religious) faith. believable adj. believer n. [Old English] [ibid.]
[3] The 'chezPhil morality' is entirely based on "Do unto others..."
One only has to ask: would
you wish to be lied to, cheated, stolen from or murdered? Then for 'you' substitute 'yours', 'a neighbour', 'some person far away'?
Then, the chezPhil principle of proportionality is based on the mathematical idea of induction (if for the first;
and if for one and so the next,
then so for the entire multitude); acceptable morality 'scales' from individuals to nations and thus to the world.
And to tie this off quite neatly, the chezPhil morality folds into the great Aussie "Fair go, ya mug!"
A corollary:
...be free, be whatever you are, do whatever you want to do, just so long as you don't hurt anybody.[
HAÎR]
Elucidation (spelled out for the slower amongst us); the 'basic' crimes:
Lying, cheating, theft and/or murder.
Addendum: "Each individual is solely responsible for his/her own actions," i.e. constructs like 'Look what you made me do!' are
invalid. (cf. 'Bringing up Baby')
Let's face it; it's not too hard but it is pretty-well all-encompassing. All we need to do is (fairly!) implement it; any enforcing would be minimised by correct and timely instruction (cf. 'Bringing up Baby').
