Welcome to Gaia! ::

Step 1 Ending Poverty

Step 2 Improve worldwide education

Step 3 Teach people to love being alive

angry people in general but why are people angry ya know? its a complex situation to where people would have to be removed but that wouldn't really make anything better because more people would be angered by that. We cant all be equal cause in different peoples eyes we aren't.

Ending capitalism, establishing equality. If we stop putting pointless imaginary values on things and simply produce and consume as equals, with no idiotic markets or ownership of the means of production, or no such thing as profit to cut corners to achieve, there will be no need to fight over land, resources, trade deals or to support an economy through military contracts and the war industry.

The elimination of evil from the human soul.

I'm just saying what I think. I don't believe morality is subjective. I'm not labeling anything as good or evil, but even if I was, if morality's subjective then there wouldn't be anything wrong with me doing so. If morality isn't subjective, then there's nothing wrong with me acting like it's not.

I think, if no one did wrong, we'd have a perfect world.

Reminds me of a post I made a while back.



That being said, I'm not against taking reasonable measures to prevent such things from happening in the first place. If the bottom line, the root source of conflict on a personal or even global scale is negative behavioral patterns, you do what you can to keep those patterns from either arising or teach people to keep them under control. I'm more for the second. Any measures to suppress such behaviors or emotions in the first place are downright questionable when it comes to issues of morality.

What I believe should happen is first, acknowledge that YES, people DO feel negative emotions and have the desire to act upon them. The key, however, is teaching people how to deal with those emotions. Teach them to recognize when they are feeling them and channel them in a more appropriate manner, one that doesn't involve violent conflict.

The thing is, that's something you can't teach directly. You can tell little Timmy not to hit Jerry when he gets mad all you want. Those types of lessons people learn indirectly through the behavior of their peers and authority figures. If Timmy's dad constantly hits Timmy's mom every time he gets mad, it's reasonable to assume Timmy just might not listen when someone tells him not to use violence when he gets mad and will use it anyways. This is something that cannot be taught unless it is lived and shown by example.

Granted, there's always exceptions to the rules. There's some people that just defy the laws of normal behavioral patterns. You start to get to that razor edge of whether or not an action is moral once you start discussing ways in which to deal with such exceptions. If enough exceptions get treated a certain way, someone somewhere is going to start questioning whether or not we deal with all people that way.

Now I'm not saying world peace is impossible, but extremely difficult. There's no way to set up that 'perfect world' that everyone seems to want. All you can do is live life as an example and teach what you can to others. I think in such a case it would be especially important to set an example for children, try to teach them the lessons to live a peaceful life before behavioral patterns truly set in. It's not the ultimate solution, but it's what little we as individuals can do.

Greed itself at the root is an emotion with the same negative connotation attached to it that anger, sadness, etc. harbor. I spoke in extremely broad terms of course and that which we were capable of on an individual level.

On a higher level and especially governmental, there's a huge problem actually being able to manipulate the system in the manner which you speak. It would effectively require not only for those in power not to have greed themselves but at the same time those supporting them and giving them power not to have it.

Let's say for instance a ruler of one country decides he wants the timber from another for money. Now, effectively, his people COULD decide to say no, we won't let you do that, but what are they going to say when he turns around and promises them a percentage of the profit from the plunder? Those that did have the stance previously that it was morally wrong for him to act upon his greed in such a way may turn around when being faced with reward themselves.

Which, in my opinion, comes back to the behaviors individuals have. You can't effectively change such a large institution unless the people at large truly desire that change. Greed is perhaps the trickiest one especially in such a materialistic society. When we live in a society where a vast number of the people live on the assumption that the quality of their life is determined by wealth and the quality of material objects they own, it's extremely easy for those in charge to write off their own greed by turning around and appealing to the people's own sense of greed and materialism. You'll be hard-pressed to get them to change their minds if they've learned to act on the acquisition of wealth.

It all comes back once again to the behaviors and well let's throw in values that an individual has and has learned. Until a person can truly live otherwise, they're going to be incapable or just plain choose not to affect change that would lead to peace.