‘Tis a sad thing that few realize
That all are retards or none are;
That we are all abnormalities
Born with unchosen deformities;
That to call one shameful and evil
Is to call all shameful and evil.
But
If instead
We realize the truth:
That good and bad are nothing
But ways of saying:
“I don’t like this”
And “I like that”
That give the illusion
That justifies the vicious acts
the likes of which were used
As the excuse to commit the acts.
Justice is ever the cover for man’s bestiality.
Have you ever looked
Into the eyes
Of a man
As he describes
What he’d like to do to those “evil” men!
And seen the same “evil”….
stare…..
Right back out at you.
As if it’s a dog on a leash
Just raring to go.
The collar, my friend, is untied by Justice!
No-one was born,
Given a contract to sign
Then told to live accordingly!
We were born free!
We washed up on the shores of life
Through no will of our own.
We owe no-one nothing!
And guilt is ever the illusion
Of the man who believed
The man at the docks who said
“Gotta give us something
To be here mate! It’s only fair!”
And if a man wishes to murder
Who are we to say he’s wrong
In any inaccessibly objective metaphysical sense;
Because all we’re really saying
When we say
“Murder is wrong!”
Is
“I don’t want to die, please don’t kill me!”
We have to be honest
About the basis
Of our legal system!
It just so happens the majority
Share preferences
That the majority finds bearable.
So we
The majority
Gang up on the “Aberrant”
On the “Freak”
On the “Retard”
And the “Criminal”
And with no justification
Other than might
We deny them the
Ability for fulfilment.
And I whole-heartedly participate
Because
I don’t want to get hurt,
Because
I want to keep my stuff
Because
I want to live in a world
Where we can all dance
Our freaky dances fearlessly
But there are those whose dance
We cannot tolerate.
We cannot like
Because it stops our dance.
So we gang up
And beat up
Those who can’t step to our rhythm.
To make ourselves feel better
We create the myth of morality,
Of justice!
To cover up the brute fact
Of the brute bullies we really are!
Do you accept this truth?
I do!
But it leaves a foul taste in my mouth.
I must wash it out!
But what’s the answer?
My answer? kind sir:
If the resources are sufficient
Then comfortable accommodations
Are most pertinent.
If not then we are left with the question:
A quick painless death
Or a lifetime in horrid conditions.
Which would you prefer?
Given the choice
I’d give society’s victims the choice.
Seeing as it’s his fate to be decided.
The aberrant
Is a monster to society
And society
Is a monster to the aberrant!
Subjective insights 
Or you could say the aberrant is an aberrant to society and society is an aberrant to the aberrant. The only reason we say it the way we do is because the aberrant are fewer in number.
☺Well written.
Thankyou 😀
CJ: “Because all we’re really saying When we say “Murder is wrong!” Is “I don’t want to die, please don’t kill me!” We have to be honest About the basis Of our legal system!”
Right. We have agreed to respect and protect a “right to life” for each other. That is how the many overcome the mighty. That’s how we convert social order from “might makes right” to the “democratic rule of law”. All practical rights arise by agreement. And, as Jefferson said, “to secure these right governments are instituted among women” (UU editing).
It’s all about agreements. We agree to constitute a nation or state. We agree to create a legislature to pass laws to against behavior that violates the rights that we agree to protect for each other, like the right to life, property, etc. We agree to establish courts, police, and so forth to enforce our laws. And we call the cops when we see someone trying to steal our neighbor’s car.
Yeah I agree it’s a club. I don’t want to get murdered or have my stuff robbed and you want the same. So we band together because two are mightier than one. But we have no right on our side. We are being as brutish to the criminal as the criminal is to our club.
This idea of “right” is a fabrication. There is no right. Even if there is a God there is no right. There is just personal preference, might and groups of people who share personal preferences.
Good and bad are just fictions we make up to cover the fact that we are monsters to those with preference sets mutually exclusive to ours. To ease our dis-ease.
To say something is “right” is to say “this is how it ought to be”. So what can we say, that everyone must agree with, as to how things ought to be?
“It ought to be that everyone has the best possible good and least possible unnecessary harm.”
Is this a “preference” or a legitimate candidate for universal, worldwide agreement?
That brings us to the problem of defining “good”. Can it be defined objectively or is it a matter of “preference”? Here’s the candidate for a definition of “good”:
“We call something ‘good’ if it meets a real need that we have as an individual, as a society, or as a species.”
At the most basic level of need (Maslow’s Hierarchy) we have objective requirements of life that everyone must agree are real needs: air, food, water, temperature homeostasis (clothing/shelter). And we can say that “a cup of water is ‘objectively’ good for a man dying of thirst in the desert” or that “a cup of water is ‘objectively’ bad for the guy drowning in the swimming pool”.
So, good and bad are not “just fictions we make up”. And they’re not always matters of preference, at least not at the most basic levels. As you move up Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs, though, things start getting fuzzier and less objective. But, at least in theory, it might be possible to objectively identify the best good in any given choice scenario.
We can say with confidence, that “it is right that everyone should have air to breath, water to drink when thirsty, and food to eat when hungry”. And there should be no argument that it is right that anyone who is sick should receive medical care.
Of course people see things differently, so as we move to less certain scenarios, the opinions of two good and honest persons may differ as to which rules/rights should be used. That’s why we have democracy and take votes. We can let the majority set in place a working rule, let it play out for a while. Later we may have clearer, more objective case to alter, remove, or replace the rule with a better one.
The ethical person seeks to follow the best rules. The moral person seeks the best good for everyone. And it is that moral intent that should guide the creation of rules.
You should have written that as a blog my friend – – – comments aren’t really the place for such blocks of well written text.
Yesterday instead of the small comment I replied back to you with i was going to write this:
https://christopherjack101.wordpress.com/2015/05/09/skittles/
And because I put it as a blog i got loads of likes and subscriptions – – – i can’t remember what it was in response to…. wait there I’ll just go have a look see…
It was going to be this comment on the god is bully blog thingy
“Yeah that’s one possible story. That the other side of a black hole is a white hole or a big bang. Big suck and a big blow. I like to imagine that in my mind sometimes.
But all because you can tell a story about how a belief came to be does not mean that that belief is not true. I think if it’s a case of the genetic fallacy.”
You mean like this: http://marvinedwards.me/category/morality-and-ethics/
yup
😀