There are so many untruths I could speak to on this page, as I have at www.baselineyourlife.com, but I feel the notion of an objective morality deserves particular scrutiny because it is so often used as the foundation for other untruths. I contend one such untruth is the sole precipitant to much of the conflict that exists in the world. As a Conscientious Objector aiming to turn mankind away from, not only violent conflict, but all conflict, I am determined to eradicate said untruth from our collective conscience.
Before I can go into details, I first need to make sure a definiton is clear, specifically the word "conflict." Most people think conflict exists the moment there are two opposing forces in contact with one another. When it comes to humans, this is not true. Conflict only exists when one of the individuals involved is frightened and/or hubristic enough to feel threatened by an opposing force (often exagerated), such that they act directly to counter the force in an attempt to "survive." Those three underlined things are REQUIRED for there to be conflict, but the act is the deciding factor. For instance, two people can have very opposing viewpoints, but even if the debate gets "heated" no actual conflict need arise, unless the participants choose to allow conflict to arise. In this way, conflict actually has roots within each person individually. I'll describe that which influences this choice as I go along.
Objective morality is the notion there are "good" and "bad" AND "right" and "wrong" forces which are natural to existence. Objective morality may be the only instance where mankind, on the whole, has conceeded there is something greater than ourselves, but the concession has been poorly executed. By way of our faulty observation skils - sensation and perception - we ended up using ourselves as the baseline, drawing a line, and placing everything in existence on either side of that line. Basically, whatever "it" was, if it aided us in surviving, it was "good." Of course, things like light, beauty, knowledge, etc. were all going to end up on the side of "good" and "right." But what if the baseline had been the universe? Take light as an example: we see the light and the darkness it cuts, but fail to realize it's all just varying degrees of energy; thus, there is no line and no duality. Applying this to human life, despite all the things that cause us pain, everything NATURAL to existence was meant to be here and is therefore "good," or at the very least nuetral, and not to be feared quite so drastically.
Becuase we insist on believing "bad" and "wrong" exist as natural forces and because we insist on categorizing everything along those standards ourselves, we assume...wait for it...there are NATURALLY bad/wrong people, rather than accepting an alternative explanation, such as, everyone is plagued by fear and/or hubris at varying degrees, which is what my needs and behavior paradigms are asserting. Once we assume there are bad/wrong people in the world, it's a hop, skip, and jump to then say, "Conflict is unavoidable." Long before ever entering a threatening situation, we have determined there are threatening people out to get us. Basically, we're all functioning paranoid schizos. Because we're all guilty of making this assumption, we're not incorrect, but...MORE