LINKS   Wikipedia Ethics  .  Eminem Lyrics  .  Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics  .  YouTube He-man vs Skeletor

"...After all, if I don't know what justice is, I'm hardly going to know whether or not it is in fact some kind of excellence or virtue, or whether the person who possesses it is unhappy or happy."
-Plato, Socrates speaking

"Good is dumb."

-Spaceballs

Consequences of Knowing Cheesecake is Murder

Being aware and knowledgable of the symmetry that love is rape of pain--that cheesecake is murer--obviously raises many ethical questions.  Firstly, what do we think about the being going on that we by chance might happen to have awareness of?  Is it terrible that any torture at all has been created?  This is one conclusion we might reach, that existence is not worth the terrible unending death that we must experience again and again for half of eternity.

But then the cold math of logic sinks in; no matter how horrible we think death and torture are, we objectively see that joy and life must perfectly balance the torture and death.  A masochist might even say it's a terrible thing that there is any joy, and again I cannot argue if I'm objective, neither does the coldness of the universe care to begin with.  (If we consider we traverse an infinite timeline, eventually having every possible viewpoint at some point in time, we might say that all add up to zero, that we have no real net opinion, or we could just consider that our opinion has value for the time we have it; does the inverse opinion have value as well?)

We have utilitarian ethics, which supports the greatest good for the greatest number of people.  Firstly, in regards to the existece of this philosophy, we see this belief is balanced by counter beliefs by masochists that there should be endless pain, however strange this seems (as indeed the whole inverted world behind our backs seems strange and backwards, even if there is a little of these inverted ethics sharing our same world: masochists seem rare but do exist), the extremes also balanced by neutral beliefs such as full balance is just dandy.  Secondly, a catch: if we see that all joy rapes equal values of pain, then we see it is totally impossible to achieve the greatest joy for the greatest number of people, if we truly view all parties as be valued equally.  One way utilitarianism can counter this is to revise itself to believe in the greatest good for the greatest number of people of our own kind, on our particular given realm of being, without a care for who we hurt.

With opinions and judgements of being come moral actions.  If I stay true to the universe's cold ambivolence, then I cannot judge a concentration camp or a holocaust to be any worse than the unseen joy it generates.  Hence I might build one, or not, at the slightest whim.  I might decide life is precious one day, and act on this belief, spend time with a suicidal friend to convince him to stick around, and another day on a whim decide to nuke Ohio.

Of course, this point of view only applies to the absolute objective theoretical picture.  Within my respective life, I have beliefs and values I will stick to, that may change a little, but usually not a whole lot.  These beliefs and actions have value and substance for the time I stick to them, even if they're somewhat lessened by our understanding that they're just one haphazard set pulled from nothing in the sea of all sets; an angle of 178 degrees in the circle of all angles, which may shift somewhat during my life but certainly not to all angles; all arguments on abortion, politics, and so on, just some random viewpoint among all views.

Another thing that diminishes our actions is a possible lack of free will.  The picture we've seen seems more like a running a computer than a sea of souls with wills of their own.  If existence is a program -- the infinite code generated by the number zero, the only operating system of being -- then we might see that our seeming decisions are simply occurences generated by this automatic fractal, results of its vastness shifting us here or there at its programmed whim, whether in an ordered way, or producing total chaos, like a programming function rand().  If this is right, our actions and beliefs seem to have less value, less passion.

We point out a huge polar difference here between cold hard truths and relative ethical beliefs.  Much of our discussion in math or logic or metaphysics is black and white: 3 cubed is 27, p requires un-p, etc.  But ethical beliefs are not correct or incorrect.  If we ask, "what shall we do today?  Should we beat up an old lady, should we volunteer at greenpeace?" the universe gives no answer.  It is 100% ambivolent.  It cannot tell us what religion we should be, as far as the ethical elements of the religion go; though the beliefs about cold facts; whether our consciousness terminates or goes on to be reincarnated, are either correct or incorrect, whether or not we ultimately discover which are true and which are false.

Though there is a cold truth involved in ethics: that all these ethical systems are perfectly balanced and self-sustained; in this way, we say the hard truth of the matter is that the universe values all ethical sysetms equally and perfectly, like a circle of 360 degrees, each ethical system some angle.  The cold math is that each ethical system is some random angle, and so this math cannot say anything as to whether we should have 45 degrees or 181 degrees as our favorite angle.

Now all this diminishing of our beliefs seems negative; we have used balance to spin ethics to a negative slant, and we might say that not to do the opposite and use the truth of what are beliefs are to also augment them and enlighten them, would be hypocritical of our understanding of a universe founded on perfect balance.  But this is harder.  Our negative reaction to our new truth of ethics comes from our particular ethical beliefs about ethics themselves; [our belief about belief].  To see the death of the value of ethics mostly results in dissapointment, as we would be unhappy at the death of a loved one, and could not very well see many positives.

But certainly we can see some positives at least.  To destroy the value of ethics can free us from the burdens of those ethics.  If all is relative, I cannot do any wrong, should feel no guilt, except relative to my particular system.  Or, we might even use this truth to augment the value of ethics; we might say, since my ethics are generated by the very core foundation of existence, that this backs them up, they are more than the feeble attempts of a human mind to give meaning to the sporadic world around us.

Of course, philosophical theory is often not practical.  The utilitarians who believe that a building full of happy hamsters outweigh a human life would usually not kill someone to help those hamsters.  In this way, our knowledge of ethical neutrality and our judgements on this awareness of ethical neutrality can be minimized to unpractical knowledge and passing ponderings about reality.  On the other hand, this knowledge could also be vehemently applied to our lives, deciding to give all our money or charity, or just jump off a building, on a whim, if nothing truly matters, noting that these actions could just be seen as existence itself behaving randomly, if free will is indeed an illusion in the running automatic fractal of life.

In either case we should re-examine our beliefs and actions in a practical way.  Consider a specific example.  An issue of whether or not to put a tip in the tip jar at a fast food joint.  If I put a dollar in the jar, I'm making a tiny sacrifice for someone else, while my invert experiences something vaguely like gaining or specifically anti-losing an anti-dollar.  Although if my sacrifice of tipping makes me feel good for doing a good deed (I might even wait until the cashier is looking to get extra credit), then this good feeling is actually rape, and if I’m aware that this is rape, I might feel bad for feeling good, and so on.  If I don't tip, I'm saving money, while my invert feels he is wasting money, although I might feel selfish and guilty for not tipping.  If I really want to involve all parties, I might even consider the clerk’s un-self, and so on.

Plato builds an imaginary society, going to celebrated lengths in debating the issue of justice.  After this whole debate, we must consider the effect that this society we’ve built has on the inverse society which supports it.  Does the existence of a total inverted society nullify everything we’ve accomplished by building Plato’s republic?  Does it even matter what is just and unjust, if there is a perfect inversion balancing all just and unjust actions?  Is there still value in being just given the belief that all justice rapes a negative?  Should we still strive for the enlightenment of the ideas outside the cave, knowing that our extra enlightenment just costs extra ignorance elsewhere, not to mention that the nature of this “knowledge” is now extremely questionable anyway juxtaposed to its inverse.


Good and Evil

With these issues, we've raised the ageless issue of good vs. evil.  As with everything else, our system generates a clear point of view of what these are; sheds new light on this endless conflict.  First, we see that each exists as a tear in one direction of nothingness, not just conflicting, but each needing the other to exist via opposition.  And in addition to seeing the creation and sustenance of each, we also better understand what they are.

Evil seems to be the acquirement of power and lust at the great expense of the innocent, this is the belief that joy raping pain is a good thing, and good seems coversely thinks that joy should not rape pain at all, that it should exist intrinsically of itself.  But if our theme is true that joy rapes pain, we see that evil is actually much more aware of how things work.  Not that the ethical judgement that joy should rape pain cannot be correct or incorrect, as we've seen that ethical judgements are all equal, but evil seems much more in tune with the concrete facts of the matter, and acts on this reality.

If the good were to understand what evil knows innately, it would be destructive.  Good's actions and causs are now somewhat pointless.  Good can still maintain its ethical judgement that joy raping pain is wrong, and fight against the opposing belief, but it's condemnation of evil becomes severely weakened; even more so if it is believed that there is no free will.  In Plato's argument of justice vs injustice -- good vs evil -- injustice seems to have triumphed at least in its basic knowledge of the universe, if it's ethical beliefs are still equally balanced with it's foes.  (We might wonder what Plato
would have concluded if he believed that love was rape!)

I ask, what in the flying hell is the difference between He-man's cheesecake and Skeletor's cheesecake?  Skeletor gets out of bed in the morning and says "How many little kids in Eternia should I murder today?  This is gonna be fun."  And He-man gets out of bed and says "I wonder how many Eternian little kids I'm going to have to stop Skeletor from killing today.  This is gonna be quite a victory."  If evil cheesecake is rape, and good cheesecake is not, then evil has to pretty damn stupid not to just pick the kind that makes you happy with all the extra added morality that justifies it.

As is said in the movie Spaceballs, "Good is dumb."


Eminem and Ethical Symmetry

An incredible example in music of a polarization ethically tearing itself apart is Eminem.  I've admired Eminem for his ability to balance the most exreme emotions and personas, telling people to beat their girlfriends or slit throats then yelling why the hell did you do that shit, man, you gotta respect life.  Treat your girl better, get some therapy.  He'll twist back forth even from line to line.  He'll say stuff like: go slit a throat, wow they think I'm serious, well I am, just kidding, no really, if you do this shit you needs serious help...  He'll use violent language to the point of it being infathomable that anything worse could be said, and then there's the song and video "Stan" painting a deeply negative picture of the extreme actions of a fan acting out on all the things Eminem sings about.

Consider--just maybe--that it's the most ultimate, absolute catch-22 possible.  Maybe Eminem causes the exact same damage as he does healing, because maybe there can be nothing else.  Extreme violence and hatred--with infinite exact precision--automatically tearing themselves into existence by raping compassion and humanity and visa versa.  Even in the haphazard world we happen to occupy--without being at all omnipotent--we have a perfect example of love being rape of pain.  If the conflict that exists in the everday--reflected by the conflict in an average rock song--is obviously a microcosm of the more extreme conflict--reflected by Eminem, why on Earth can't we see the tiniest little extension that this continues outward forever, that we can't avoid it, or any of the moral situations resulting from it.  That it's the result of existence.

Again, I'm not stating the obvious; of course, of course, everyone agrees that conflict and pain and hell and suffering--and joy and love and nirvana and hope--exist, and surround us daily and likely everywhere there is; of course it's nothing new to extend the existence of the minor conflicts to major and then to universal ones.  My point is that the existence of each necessitates the absolute axiom that one rapes the other.  A deep, powerful anti-violent video like "Stan" necessitates the violence that its humanity feeds off of, and visa versa.  We can condemn every pleasurable belief and action we personally, subjectively dissaprove of as wrong and evil, and we say those that comit them often deserve punishment.  And then we can go eat cheesecake.
......