More ramblings from me. Because I don’t get to talk about such things in real life and it gives me the opportunity to make my books sound smarter than they actually are. However, I’ll also update on the book writing front. I think I should be able to finish the first draft of Book 3 late Nov to mid-Dec. Anyhow, back to me rambling.
Good and evil, one side must be good and the other evil. Of course, whatever side I favour is good and the other evil. You have to believe something like this otherwise how could you ever do things like shitting on your obnoxious neighbour’s rose bush—it’s advised not to do this drunk— or do the even more heinous, like murder?
We’ll stick with discussing the act of murder, as I’m sure people don’t want a philosophical rambling about using defecating as a means to piss your neighbours off, and because killing is the viewed as one of the worst things a human can do.
War is an easy murderous example when it comes to the discrepancies of good and evil. Both sides, of course, believe they’re fighting for the side of good. It is then the victor who writes the history and forces the doctrine that the loser was evil. Please, watch the documentary The Act Of Killing for a prime example of this. But, that is then, and this is now, a period where mass violence and wars are at a global low. So, perhaps that means there is an understanding that murder, any type of murder, is more and more seen as an evil action, no matter the reasoning. Perhaps a point is being reached where even the victor’s version of history is being challenged.
With the change in attitudes towards murder, the argument could be that the act has always been evil, and we are simply becoming more and more self-aware of this. But, if you really want to get pedantic, no matter what, we are still murderers in some shape or form as we’re killing lifeforms right now with our immune system. It’s a system built for fucking up invaders, and it has badass henchmen like the Natural Killer Cells. Less frivolously and more contentiously, there is, of course, eating meat, which involves regular murder. So when it comes to killing that is more likely to be seen as evil, it is generally attached to humans and whatever lifeforms we incorporate into our own little tribes (e.g. pets). However, that just further highlights the subjectivity of connecting evil to the act itself.
This change in attitude to murder is incredibly brand new when you look at it historically. Thousands of years, we were more than happy to kill another if we felt it was in the name of good (for ourselves or for the tribe). Then suddenly, in a blink of an eye, we’ve changed our minds and gone against the grain of nature and our historical upbringing.
If I was to think of how Fiorella would think about such development, she would talk about our most base of instincts, the will to survive. She would say our ability to survive has become far more effective, and this is why our perspective of good and evil has changed. As our survivability and perspective of our survivability has changed, so have what we rationalise as good and evil. Our actions change and adapt to the systems we put in place to benefit the person/group/society/nation, then the cultural doctrine of good/evil is used to explain it after. If that is the case, then good and evil simply does not exist, and are only a means to justify propagating the genetic code and ensuring it lives on. That is where I try to expand this line of thinking with Fiorella, to bring it to such absurd lengths where she sees it as the ultimate purpose and one which is needed to face the reality that everything (universe included) will die.
Easy come, easy go…these systems came into place in a blink of an eye, they can disappear even quicker, as it’s always easier to destroy than it is to build.
That is something which I will ramble on about in my next post/email.