You see the worlds problems are by choice, even your negative defeatest approach was your choice and yet you might be the first to cuss the world for being so irrational and messed up.
IT'S by choice that we do not seek one understanding through defining the most finite source and power in life so that with the most finite expression we no longer use subjective opinions on what is in line or opposing that purpose and direction in life. With knowledge of how things are and how things could be and how to recognize good or bad right or wrong without it being mere subjective opinions then we have something we never had, known purpose,known goals, known direction, know how to recognize true opposition to life and true reflections and manifestations of it's essence.
Like I said, we chose not to simply define the simplest of things and that's by choice, we simply choose to live this way. If you don't believe me then why is there a huge difference in how people live country to country, community to community, school district to school district, and from camps outside prison to being inside prisons?
People in prison choose to live in agression, rage, violence, fear, gang mentality, ego/pride, revenge, hate/anger, selfishness, animosity, and thus live in their own hell and yet it could be like a sleep over camp where they work together and enjoy each others time or like a commune where paradise is possible as they make things good for one another tsking away burdens, sharing chores, interests etc, all by choice. Neighborhoods same wsy, end violent behavior and threats and crime and you build value in property and community and higher pay with better jobs and more conveniences.
Once again by choice.
There are so many huge and silly assumptions in this post that it's hard not to just yell, "God damn hippies!" in my best Cartman voice and not even try reasoning with you.
First assumption, that my approach to life is negative and defeatist. This is silly because it presupposes that I believe that, for the first time in history, you fire and brimstone preachers are correct and the world hangs in the balance of mankind's urgent spiritual awakening. I do not. In fact, I feel like you're the one with the negative viewpoint, because if the planet's continued health is contingent on mankind adhering to a singular view of right and wrong, then we're fuckin doomed!
Second silly assumption: It's by choice that we don't seek one understanding by defining the source and power, etc. This is silly because it presupposes that we can prove or disprove a hard standard for the proper direction and purpose of mankind. If we had knowledge of such a hard standard, philosophy and religion wouldn't be a thing, there would be only one school of thought. All these differing world views didn't happen because we chose not to define these things, they happened because, given our current understanding of reality and the technology accessible for aiding in that understanding, these things are as yet undefinable. One of the primary purposes of philosophy is figuring out our purpose, though, so saying we've chosen not to define these things is as ignorant as saying that we can define them.
When you refer to this as defining the "simplest of things", it's also insanely arrogant. What you're doing is presupposing that your communal morality is not only objectively correct, but obviously so. This implies you couldn't possibly be wrong, which in turn implies the infallibility of your intuition. Arrogant doesn't even cover it. I have a really hard time wrapping my mind around how someone could even be that self assured without any hard evidence. Confidence feels good, though, so that level of ignorance must be as blissful as the old saying states. Nevertheless, from a bystander's perspective, assumption 3, here, is perhaps the most ridiculous.
Lastly, you've assumed that the differences in how people live proves that they choose not to adhere to objective definitions of right and wrong. The problem with this assumption is that right and wrong are -purely- subjective values. Unless you can prove that a hard standard for moral correctness exists (and lemme spare you the suspense; you can't), then you can't say that the only possibility is that not coming to identical moral conclusions was a conscious decision. If morality is based in opinion (and it absolutely is unless, again, you can prove a hard standard), then it is only natural that many different versions of right and wrong would emerge, as individuals are generally prone to being different from one another.
So yeah, basically what you're saying is that if people just accepted one view of right and wrong (your view, I assume? ) instead of believing what they actually find compelling, everything would work out. This flatly rejects the very nature of human psychology, which is to form opinions based upon one's particular experiences and influences. You might as well propose that we all sprout wings to eliminate air travel's contribution to carbon emission. Sure, that would solve a lot of problems, it's just not a reasonable explanation.
Also, GOD DAMN HIPPIES!
