Blackandblue
Rising Star
How do I resolve my cognitive dissonance over vying for personal power, and making social behaviour in order to keep up in image, versus an ethical theory that recognises the inherent importance of others.
Sometimes I feel that since I can only know about the existence of my own mind, it makes only sense that I should favour myself directly proportional to how likely it is that other people are ‘fundamentally’ important. Since it is possible that all people are important, I am compassionate to all ‘just in case’, and the same goes for my treatment of animals (also a vegetarian). Because plants almost certainly don’t matter (and I guess I need them now), I am ok with destroying them. I feel that people such as the ones on this board, are ‘in the absolute’ more ‘real’ than others, and so if I ever met one of you in real life I would respect the primacy of your being. What I’m saying is that if I had to decide between my own death and the life of two of you, I might choose both of you. Meanwhile, if it was a hundred other people, that most people would consider important, a mother, an elderly man, a baby, with no other apparent impressing and visible reason, I might not.
As it stands, I tend to assume and disregard most people as inconsequential, while keeping an eye out for people who are. That is, since most people seem to lead trivial life. I feel compassion for them, but my thoughts on this tend to override that, sadly or otherwise. For one reason or another, I feel that this is wrong. Help!
I found a file on my computer that I think is a precursor to my thinking. It might interest some people. I don't know if i wrote it or not:
Its hard to decide on a notion or what is moral because, what is true must first be defined. Being a “social” being to find out what is true, is just as valid a strategy as meditating, and seeking the truth in your mind. As I said before, its called subjectivism, where one believes the truth can be of the mind. Objectivism is where truth is thought to be “mind independent” - an objectivist would likely be more social and hmm.. I have an interesting thought about this. But anyways…What I mean is that people, who are vying for control, have raped those who are not vying for control. Its detracting from my experiences - or the experiences I could potentially have. Like some guy who steals all the girls at a party. He’s getting more than his share, and experiences should be shared. Some say that’s what ethics is. Equal experience, relative to what is true.
Sometimes I feel that since I can only know about the existence of my own mind, it makes only sense that I should favour myself directly proportional to how likely it is that other people are ‘fundamentally’ important. Since it is possible that all people are important, I am compassionate to all ‘just in case’, and the same goes for my treatment of animals (also a vegetarian). Because plants almost certainly don’t matter (and I guess I need them now), I am ok with destroying them. I feel that people such as the ones on this board, are ‘in the absolute’ more ‘real’ than others, and so if I ever met one of you in real life I would respect the primacy of your being. What I’m saying is that if I had to decide between my own death and the life of two of you, I might choose both of you. Meanwhile, if it was a hundred other people, that most people would consider important, a mother, an elderly man, a baby, with no other apparent impressing and visible reason, I might not.
As it stands, I tend to assume and disregard most people as inconsequential, while keeping an eye out for people who are. That is, since most people seem to lead trivial life. I feel compassion for them, but my thoughts on this tend to override that, sadly or otherwise. For one reason or another, I feel that this is wrong. Help!
I found a file on my computer that I think is a precursor to my thinking. It might interest some people. I don't know if i wrote it or not:
Its hard to decide on a notion or what is moral because, what is true must first be defined. Being a “social” being to find out what is true, is just as valid a strategy as meditating, and seeking the truth in your mind. As I said before, its called subjectivism, where one believes the truth can be of the mind. Objectivism is where truth is thought to be “mind independent” - an objectivist would likely be more social and hmm.. I have an interesting thought about this. But anyways…What I mean is that people, who are vying for control, have raped those who are not vying for control. Its detracting from my experiences - or the experiences I could potentially have. Like some guy who steals all the girls at a party. He’s getting more than his share, and experiences should be shared. Some say that’s what ethics is. Equal experience, relative to what is true.
