In our lives we have two ulitimate choices
The choice to be good, or evil.
This can be influenced by anyone or anything, but the choice between the two is soley up to you.
It is up to you and you alone to differentiate yourself.
You can choose to be a force of good and to bring light to the world, or you can choose to be evil, and to bring darkness and suffering into the world.
There has been a war waged between these two fronts since before time.
Look deep within yourself, find who you truely are, and follow the path before you, its the only way the war will have a natural ending
Universal Dichotomy
Not true.
Good and evil isn't predicated on the good of the whole or upon suffering.
Rather, good is behaving by one's own nature, and evil is against nature.
Suffering will exist either way.
Virtue is all about aligning yourself with the archetype, with being the best version of yourself.
…to illustrate: a cat that behaves as the ideal of a cat is a good cat, though his interests as a cat are in conflict with the interests of the mouse.
While the cat that fails miserably at being a cat is quite evil indeed.
The universal order is disrupted when the German stops being a German, when men are turned against themselves.
so then good vs evil is about being for or against the natural order?
are virtues established on the basis of the natural order?
so that would mean being good is being for your natual purpose and evil is being against it?
Well if you are strictly secular or religious, there is no difference between physical law or moral law. It's only when you diverge from these positions and get fluffly pop pleb philosophy that they diverge. Or someone trying to sell you something.
i intend this to be a theoretical discussion about moral relativism and to encourage people to form their own opinions on the subject
To expand: if there is a designer/intentional higher power: Moral and physical law are the same because they're both divine will. If there is no designer/intentional higher power, moral and physical law are the same because moral law is "simply" an evolutionary outgrowth in response to natural law. Note that the latter doesn't discount God, just doesn't put the personal (aspect of) God at the Godhead.
so that would mean that god could be/is everything and nothing?
sage