[sexdrugsmoney]

Zorro, please let us open a discourse that is friendly and that has the ultimate goal of enlightment. I don't believe the answers to this question is a simple as you make it out to be.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1 person who is nice to no-one.
1 person who is nice to some people.
1 person who is neither nice or mean.
1 person who is a child rapist and cannibal.

If there is no afterlife, then all these people meet the same end, and to me that is illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]
How is this illogical? Seems like you have a deeply ingrained belief that there should be eternal justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because eternal justice is logical to me.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If your actions in life are totally insignificant then nothing is 'wrong' and nothing is 'right'

[/ QUOTE ]
Your actions are not insignificant, they have an effect on people in the here and now. If you're intelligent enough to understand this, and normal enough to care, then figuring out what's right and what's wrong isn't that hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

If I am going to die one day, and you are going to die one day, and everyone here is going to die one day, and no afterlife exists, then all we have is this life.

If this life is all we have, and each of our time of expiration is unknown, then is it not logical to 'make the most of what we have' and not 'waste' our lives? (whether one wastes their life or not is subjective)

So how do we 'make the most of what we have'? Is it what we have been given OR what we have the potential to achieve?

We have laws which govern the daily relations between humans, the goal being a peaceful existence for every human as we are all equal. (I presume because of the common fact that we all were given 'life' and we all will 'die)

But these laws we witness are commonly broken. As members of a society, we give up various 'powers' (ie- the potential to regulate our fellow human beings when they wrong us by our own hands) as that power is entrusted to a justice system.

If we attempt to carry out that justice we are then in jeopardy of being judged by that justice system who can take away our liberty for a portion of our lives or even our life depending on what culture we are in and the laws that apply to it.

But who are the judges and what right do they have to deprive one of the only thing they have, their life?

Society is everywhere, there is no piece of land that is "free", everything is bought/sold and owned by somebody, and a human's liberty is from day one subject to following a certain set of rules, failure to do so can result in loss of liberty and or life.

Yet before birth, none of us signed a contract stating we would subject ourselves to these rules. There were no rules given beforehand, no choice in which we could accept or reject to enter the world, the choice was made for us, now we are here and again we seemingly have no choice but to live by the governance of our fellow humans.

As humans made the decision to bring us here, a different set make the decision to allow us to remain here, and under what circumstances?

Yet, every human has seemingly unlimited potential to obtain nearly every desire they may be able to think of, the only thing that stops them is themselves. (either by giving up this power to please the laws of society or a deity)

I cannot recall who said it (it may have been Marx) but it was something to the effect of 'If I raise a child to the age of seven they are mine for life'. Do not take the quote as if it were gospel (as its highly probable it's a misquote), but it makes a point since when we entered into this world from day one we have been 'programmed' by those who have raised us, on how we should act and comminicate in this world we have entered. (specifically, our culture/language/who we are/who is close to us/what we believe in etc.)

Ofcourse, the problem with the quote given above is that if one studies to 'enlgithen themselves' they can go back and begin to question the programming of their every belief they have 'ingrained' and challenge it to see if they agree with the encoder's (usually the parent) original message, whether they take a 'negotiated stance' (accept a part of it, reject another) or 'oppositional'. (total rejection) (this relates to Stuart Hall's work in Sociology FYI)

If humans are given no programming, what are they? Are they like animals, with merely desires? Is conscience a construct given to us by our parents or religion? Who is to say what is right and wrong?

This answer is not so simple I believe.

Therefore if we break away from parental/religious/societal programming, and if conscience is a contruct and right and wrong are not clearly defined, all we have is our life here and now and our desires ... what stops us from carrying them out, and why shouldn't we?

I don't have the answer, I only have questions.

But here's a question:

If this life is all we have and we are all designated to die at some point, then what is the logic of refraining from our desires though they may hurt fellow humans who are also designated to die and many of whom we hold in a lesser esteem than our family, which we are 'programmed' to "love"?

Cheers,
SDM

PS - What is "normal" and is this term culturally specific or universally applicable?