Have you also noticed how people generally tend to find it harder to do good things or be good? Is it easier to be bad, and do bad things?
asked 10 Mar '10, 09:16
Albert Einstein once commented that the most fundamental question we can ever ask ourselves is whether or not the universe we live in is friendly or hostile. He hypothesized that your answer to that question would determine your destiny.
Whether it is easier for you to do good things or bad things depends on whether you've made the decision (as Einstein put it) that the universe is a friendly place, or whether it is an unfriendly place.
If you have made the decision that the universe is hostile, you will feel justified in doing bad things, because it balances the fairness factor (Life treats me badly, so I'll take from others what I will).
If, on the other hand, you consider the universe a friendly place that will always meet your needs, doing things that help yourself and others live in harmony becomes as natural as breathing, and doing bad things becomes decidedly uncomfortable.
answered 10 Mar '10, 15:08
+1 my physicist husband also believes that.
(10 Mar '10, 17:17) emination
You've forgotten to put a link in your question to the definitive list of all the good and bad things in the world. I'll answer your question once you've done that.
...I have a feeling I might be waiting a long time :)
answered 10 Mar '10, 09:51
Mmm, that's a bit of a cheat, isn't it? :) I think you can assume for purposes of this question that "good" and "bad" are what a reasonable person (by your definition) would consider good and bad. Say all you want about being morally agnostic, but I doubt I would have to worry about you keying my car if I parked it next to yours.
(10 Mar '10, 15:11) Vesuvius
Oh really, Vesuvius? :) So we then come down to what a reasonable person is or isn't, don't we? So, in your definition, reasonable people don't key cars? I would argue that everyone who does anything, in the moment of doing it, believes they are being reasonable otherwise they wouldn't do it. Afterwards, maybe when they are less angry, they may think otherwise. It's the endless good vs evil thing again and I would propose, like Gurdjieff, that everyone believes they are doing good even when everyone else thinks otherwise.http://www.inwardquest.com/questions/1556/what-is-good-and-evil/1557#1557
(10 Mar '10, 17:16) Stingray
Check out this answer for an explanation of how, for example, being mean to someone else can actually be your version of good in the moment: http://www.inwardquest.com/questions/2663/why-are-people-mean-to-each-other/2693#2693
(10 Mar '10, 17:35) Stingray
Occasionally, people do bad things in the name of a higher good, but those are not the people I am talking about. Truly, everyone has a rationalization for what they do, but that doesn't mean that what they do is useful or beneficial to anyone (except possibly for feeding their own distorted sense of self-satisfaction).
(10 Mar '10, 19:42) Vesuvius
As for the Emotional Guidance Scale, I find that argument a bit simplistic. There are constructive and destructive ways of dealing with anger. There's a difference between lashing out at someone else, and building a charity (both of which are possible outcomes of anger). That said, I can be intelligent about my response to such anger, if I understand the angry person's perspective. Part of emotional maturity is learning how to respond to emotions in a positive way.
(10 Mar '10, 19:42) Vesuvius
Finally, the notion that you can be completely neutral about other people's actions is unworkable. That would be tantamount to saying the best values to have are no values at all. Even if you could pull it off for yourself and your own life, everyone else would still insist that some things are better than others. Abraham even has a name for that; he calls it contrast. You can call it ethics, morality, good and evil or whatever you like, you can say that it's all relative, but you can't dismiss it out of hand.
(10 Mar '10, 19:44) Vesuvius
You certainly are in an argumentative mood today, Vesuvius :) I'm having a bit of trouble seeing where I am saying some of the things that you are assuming I am. Perhaps if you could ask your concerns as a new question, we can explore those issues a bit?
(10 Mar '10, 20:02) Stingray
I will try. But I'm not sure I can formulate it into a question. The "does ethics exist" question has already been asked. The "do good and evil exist" question has already been asked. I think it comes down to, "How can you experience contrast, when everything is the same?" And the answer is, "You can't." We come to this life to experience contrast, to see differences, and if you decide to rise above that to a perspective where there are no differences, no contrast, then why bother coming here at all?
(10 Mar '10, 20:41) Vesuvius
OK. New question is here: http://www.inwardquest.com/questions/5029/how-do-you-experience-contrast-if-everything-is-the-same
(10 Mar '10, 21:29) Vesuvius
Ok thanks Vesuvius. Give me a bit of time to have a think about what you've written here combined with the question you've asked and see if I can get to the heart of the matter. Might be tomorrow now though...getting late in this part of the world :)
(10 Mar '10, 23:19) Stingray
showing 2 of 10 show 8 more comments
ok my slippery mind at work again to quote Yoda
Anger, fear, aggression these are bad things. what was said I find true most people find it easeir to stay in those place or just hard to get out of, so easier to stay there. peace
answered 10 Mar '10, 10:19
Once people are attracted to the 'bad' things or thoughts, it is generally easier to stay there as it becomes an habitual way of being or thinking.
To move to the 'good' side, then takes some mental inner work and quite frankly a lot of people don't want to put forth the effort and persistence that is required to change their habitual thoughts and way of being.
However, as Stingray so rightly pointed out 'bad' and 'good' are just words and the perception of each may be different for each individual.
answered 10 Mar '10, 13:08
If you are talking from an observer's point of view, then according to the Law of Attraction, the observer is attracting that good or bad behaviour from that particular person.
Therefore, it is never about the other person, but always about ourselves and what we are attracting from others.
answered 10 Mar '10, 10:03
I would agree that our behavior greatly influences the behavior of others. But to say that I am in complete control of how someone else behaves smells like free will violation.
(10 Mar '10, 15:29) Vesuvius
Vesuvius, we control everything in our physical reality and that includes peoples' behaviour towards "us". It is up to them what they do with other people but you can choose to attract whatever behaviour you want from them when you are in their presence
(10 Mar '10, 15:59) Pink Diamond
If all manifestations are vibrational matches, then we and the other person have both attracted the reality we are both living and therefore, I will say that it cannot be violation of free will as the universe never fails in giving us what exactly matches our vibration.
(10 Mar '10, 16:09) Pink Diamond
showing 2 of 3 show 1 more comments
If you are seeing this message then the Inward Quest system has noticed that your web browser is behaving in an unusual way and is now blocking your active participation in this site for security reasons. As a result, among other things, you may find that you are unable to answer any questions or leave any comments. Unusual browser behavior is often caused by add-ons (ad-blocking, privacy etc) that interfere with the operation of our website. If you have installed these kinds of add-ons, we suggest you disable them for this website