A seriously waffling statement of argument.

READ THIS IF YOU DARE:
this is very long, and wanders off topic a lot. it is also probably very naive and uninformed, but at this present point in time it's what im thinking. and it may (or may not) give you some interesting insight into the kind of thinking area my research topic is from. also, it hasnt been proof read - you've been warned.

So, I've been thinking about what exactly my idea is lately. a lot. infact i'm very stressed about it. one second i'll be confident in the knowledge i have a concrete idea, the next second it's gone again.
This is, unfortunately, just part of who i am.
but i think i need to start to narrow it down. i need something concrete on which to ground/focus my research, or im just gonna keep researching heaps of stuff with no real purpose.

So, I think in a very broad sense i am trying to ecompass two different ideas, which i'm sure are related somehow. I'm trying to convince people to wake up and not be suckered into a consumer/materialist culture that is the mainstream. and at the same time i'm very much interested in morals.

I have a vague idea that perhaps by promoting morals i can conter-act/curb enthusiasm for/undo some of/create a new dominant culture.

maybe by giving strength to motives other than profit... but i dont want to think of this in an entirely business way...

maybe it's about not accepting the current ' social currency ' whether it be profit in business or money as the main goal.

i dont accept 'their' social currency, I dont need to be rich to feel successful. i need to be happy and fulfilled, but i would argue, and many others would too, that that can't be found in the pursuit for money, or when you have 'status anxiety' (De Botton)

maybe what my idea is, is i want to do is argue that money should not be so closely related to status.

perhaps esteem should be given to moral values and virtues. perhaps more emphasis should be placed on selflessness, or altruism. than on making money.

like it was when saints of old were esteemed, the were often poor in a worldly sense but were held in high status because of their selfless acts. (De Botton)

Which brings me to religion. Religion has been promoting values such as the ones i'm talking about for centuries, so it could provide interesting case studies and precedents. but, in my opinion, religion also has it's vices: it inevitably creates people who think of themselves as more virtuous and therefore better people than others. Moreover, it tends to create people who think that people who do not share their beliefs are 'evil'. in short it creates a very judgmental system, despite many religions preaching non-judgementalism, or at least saving judgment for god. "judge not lest ye be judged" (Bible, Matt 7:1)

a lot of the time christians, for example, seem all too ready to judge people that 'sin' as 'evil' even though how people develop their beliefs/values is very subjective. if those same christians had been brought up in the circumstances of the people they denounce as evil would their actions have been much different? how can they know?
beliefs are very circumstantial and inherited, and therefore not attributable to merit.

true empathy completely defuses judgment. on a personal level at least.

there are obviously universal 'bads' like murder or rape but that begs the question, who is evil/bad? is that person evil/bad
even when people may act differently than another person would given a particular scenario, is that their fault? or is it do to the way their genes determined how the neurons in their brain work? or is it god's fault for making their brains that way? or do they have a soul which determines that decision making? but even if they do, was that soul not created by god? and if it was wasnt it unfair to give certain people better souls than others? if all souls were created equal surely it's unfair to place them in such wildy biased scenarios. (unless god issues souls into creatures on a random basis (statistics 101).

surely it i a good thing to chastise that murderer, so they cannot affect more of society but can the person be blamed for their decision, given that everyone is determined by their surroundings. maybe it's the thing they do that's bad, not them. maybe it's good to look them up so more of that bad thing cannot happen.


although i dont wana bag on christianity too much, definately not all christians judge like this. when i was growing up my Dad always said "love the sinner, hate the sin" although, in practice, when you're told what the people do is evil, it's hard not to believe they themselves are evil...

ANYWAY, I DIGRESS, perhaps more esteem should be placed on moral virtues than on making money. (like it was when saints of old were esteemed)


one important distinction i would like to make: i want to encourage people to do be more alruistic/kind/not judgmental, not because it might make them feel better (or might ensure they go to heaven) i want them to do it because they want to go what is good. but i do wonder - can it be done? can you appeal to an aspect of people that is not self serving?

consumerism doesnt do it, it perpetuates and encourages the opposite. egoism would proport truely altruistic behaviour is impossible. maybe though if we stop thinking of ourselves as 'me' and think of ourselves as 'just-part-of-humanity-(living organisims)-as a whole, maybe then, with a different definition of 'the self' egoism would become altruism?

but all this begs the question "what is good?" what makes a 'good citizen'? now i dont want to go into whether or not its always good to be honest, i need to focus on what constitute good actions in relation to altrusim, empathy etc

is it what's good for yourself (or your immediate/friends) ?
(consumerism would tell you this is what is good) no, not if this effects what's good for others.

is its what's good for others?
this in turn can effect you, it can make you feel better to.

but what if you're good to yourselves and others, but it comes at a cost to some animal species, or the planet? what is good then? is it what is good for all living creatures and the planet?

but that begs the question, is that degree of 'good' even possible? every action we have has a reaction.

i would argue, and so would some contemporary philosophers (who i'll reference if i ever use this argument) that perhaps what is good is the pursuit of good, but maybe trying to be good and trying to define what good is will mean we will always be getting closer to what IS actually good.

it's kinda like if i try and step from point A to B traveling only half the distance left from A to B each time. each time i stop i am closer to B, but will never, in fact reach it, (ignoring quantum physics definition of the shortest possible distance and given i do not have an infinite amount of time).

if every human tried to act in a way that was 'good' to the best of their knowledge, and always critically evaluated what 'good' in fact was, or at least evaluated what the 'best' or 'least impacting' course of action was, then maybe everything, and every one, would move closer to what 'good' actually is.

so basically, my project is about promoting altruistic/socially responsible/moral behaviour not because it in some way is better for the individual, but because it is simply the right thing to do ie. 'good'. or as good as it can be.

or maybe i wana just make it simpler and say promote that stuff because it makes for better societies/ a better world

I dont know. i'll think more about it.