More Philosophy on Good and Evil

You will have to bare with me. I was thinking last night on the subject. So here I go again. My argument, that has been developing for a while now, is that good and evil is a human construction not an actual thing. The reason I say this is that each act considered good or evil is only that way because of the viewpoint of the entity saying an act is good or evil.

The only way to really know for certain that an act is good or evil is to understand it within the total confines of causality. Unless you know 100% of the causality of the universe you cannot say for certain if an act is good or evil. All you are able to do is say that given a set of local circumstances, from a particular viewpoint, at the certain moment, an act is good or evil.

This would mean that only a God that had total awareness of all causality could possibly know good and evil.

This does not mean that I am saying that everything is permissible or even desireable. What I am saying that using the term good or evil is not sufficient to explain the necessity of actions. My example right now is the War on Terror. The President uses the term good and evil a lot. This is not good enough and has not really worked in keeping us on task.

The reason for this, I think, is that subconsiously we know how shallow the terms are. We need a more indepth reason to sacrifice in a war. There are real reasons that religious extremism should be faught against. But good and evil are not reasons they are viewpoints.

A better argument would be to start at the beginning. The meaning of life is to create more life. Within that outter sphere is an inner sphere of human hirarchy, all human societies rely on some form of hirarchy into order to exist. We cannot exist outside either of those two outer spheres. Then it is a matter of determining what form of hirarchy is most benificial. It is demonstratable that extremist hirarchies do not last long. The devolve into chaos then reorganize. This is not condusive to the expansion of the spieces. Nor is it condusive to mental expansion. This is very important since I would posit that human intellectual expansionism is most important to spieces survival, and indeed life survival of all life on Earth.

So only societies that have dispearsed power, limited government, and diametrically opposed forces can allow humans to think freely. Free thought flows into scientific, social, and philosophical progress and that is good since it allows humanity to better coexist with its neighbors and live on the Earth without destroying it. Extremism, of any kind, puts out of bounds certain thought so that potential answers to important questions are never brought to fruition. As messy as western liberal democracy is, it is the best hirarchy that has yet been developed to advance the spieces. That is a reason to fight against religious extremists.