But man's tool for survival is his reasoning facility. Man can always make a rational attempt to understand his environment and act upon that knowledge to further his existence. This will almost always necessitate judging other men's actions as right or wrong. One must do this because it is almost impossible to do anything without interacting with other men in some fashion.
Many would have us believe that man is not fit to understand the environment in which he finds himself. All "truths" are subjective. What I view as right or wrong will be viewed differently by the next man and the next etc. Who can say whose version is correct?- therefore the concepts of good and evil are abstract. So anything goes. That is the philosophy of anti-life in which the Left is so intricately entwined.
But who can say this or that is right or wrong? Well, anyone. Anyone, that is, who is willing to use reason. We have to have a starting point, a basic tenet to work from upon which everyone can agree. We will never acheive that, but I think that a fairly large majority of people would accept that it is a good thing to be alive and that given the choice they would prefer to stay that way.
That's the starting point- Life. We can then go on to say that whatever enhances Life is generally good and whatever detracts from Life (or enhances the prospects of death) are generally bad/evil. You can work upwards from that tenet. Freedom is an intrinsic part of man and his well being. Freedom to think, to reason, to act. Freedom to pursue not only his base existence but happiness as well. Obviously, there is much ground in between the basic tenet of Life is good and the creation of a nation like the USA but everything can be weighed on the scales of a man's reason to build on this basic tenet.
You look around at the world. The places on this planet that are most inhospitable to man are not extreme natural environments like the summit of Everest, the frigidity of Antartica or even the Moon. Man using reason has made these places livable and even hospitable. The most inhospitable places for man are places where other men do not widely accept, indeed they outright reject the idea that man's rational facutly is competent to understand his environment.
The Taliban forbade anything but the most rudimentary education and look at Afghanistan. Babies are being raped in South Africa because of a superstitious belief that it will somehow cure the mysterious illness. People starve because they do not accept the basic tenets of science that would allow them to better transform their world to feed themselves. In the Middle East the willingness to accept another man's word that an unsubstantiated "paradise with virgins" awaits him upon death leads men to actually blow themselves to bits as well as killing others who did not share his belief.
It never fails to amaze me. The United States is a nation that has enjoyed prosperity unprecedented in all of human history. You would think that after two centuries of a proven example, people would stop and say "hey, maybe they're on to something." It's not just the US though. If even small steps in the general direction of safeguarding a man's freedom to live and interact are taken, prosperity- even if tempered- usually follows.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. But I think that man can always, if he so chooses, make a rational decision about things. Even if faced with two unnattractive or wrong choices, if one must choose then you pick the lesser evil and in that situation that is the "right" choice. And you can use the same tenet to decide. Even if neither option enhances Life at all, you can usually still say "which detracts from life the least?".
I realize there are gray areas that arise when one doesn't have enough information to make a rational choice. But you still should use reason and make the best choice you can with dignity and then have the integrity to live with the consequences of your actions, to include making restitution to another party if through your ignorance you wronged them. That's my opinion anyway.
My apologies at the several paragraphs I have taken to say a thing that others could probably state in a few concise sentences.
One of the best opinions I've read in a long time. You have the basic rules down for living a peacefull and truthfull life (in my opinion).
Great reply and KUDOS to you.
FReegards,
FMCDH
You seem to be suggesting that if a person is true to reason, even if nothing more than choosing the lesser of two evils, that this constitutes being "right." I took that to mean that you believe a person can get to the state of "always doing the right thing" based on the moral code that you've proposed above.
The title had 2 questions. The first was about doing the right thing. The second is "how does it hurt to imagine no one has achieved it?"
Can you answer that question if it applies?
Also, if your answer to the first is "yes, it can be achieved through reason," then "how does it help to imagine that this is achievable?"