mockingbird
Silver Meritorious Patron
I think a lot of us have a hard time finding our way and values after spending a long time in Scientology. It provides your ethics and morals.
In leaving Scientology I found out the villain can win all the time. The world is not fair, life is not just and people do not automatically get what they deserve and we ALSO have feelings of moral responsibility DESPITE the universe not caring about our moral values. We have a moral nature (most of us with different values and to different degrees) but the greater environment does not and apparently some people also do not.
We are affected by our own ethics and the unethical or amoral greater world around us BOTH. This worldview is present in the Coen brothers films. In No Country For Old Men they show a world in which someone may suffer from consequences of their own choices and simultaneously the greater world is indifferent to human morality.
The protagonist steals some money and this has the consequence of people coming to get it back and try to kill him and other people. But the world and some of the other people in it are not constrained by morals or laws in any way. They do whatever they decide to with inconsistent consequences, if any at all.
Bad people enjoy success and comfort sometimes and never get punished while good people get hardships they in no way deserve without justice sometimes and no person or other factor ever intervenes. In short life isn't fair, it never was and never will be but you can also feel responsible for moral failings despite the environment not having any moral nature itself and some people displaying far less morality than you might or far different morality.
Being amoral or nihilistic is a route some people do go on undeniably, but most of us will not do that and very likely would not be happy even trying. Even if some evidence supports the idea that life, human life, is without meaning or even value, it doesn't mean it is objectionable for people to act as if they find meaning or value in life and in morality, as imperfect as both are.
Some antinatalists feel we as individuals and a species would be better off if we never existed because life involves both moral failures and very real suffering. In the metaphor of the blue pill and red pill from The Matrix some have taken to seeing the blue pill as settling for the worldview that things are as they seem and okay but the red pill means finding enlightenment about some deeper, truer, nature to life.
This has been interpreted and spun many ways but the basic ideas are essentially the same. There is another element that some nihilists and antinatalists have added - the black pill. They find no meaning or no positive meaning or value in life and some of them claim that there is no possible way life could have meaning or value for any human beings.
I reject this unilateral decision on several grounds. First off I do not think they have met the burden of proof for such a sweeping statement. There is a burden to establish something and eliminate all rational doubt and they have not even approached meeting it.
Second, they are acting like their experience is the only possible experience anyone can have or the only valid experience. That is absurd. Other people may have a different perspective on life and meaning.
Sometimes I enjoy life and sometimes I do not. I do not wish it to cease for everyone everywhere forever because of the times I do not enjoy it.
Other people might enjoy it a lot more than me and rarely or even never not enjoy it somewhat or desire for it to continue. Who am I to condemn them ?
In other projects like the Fargo film and television series the Coen brothers show this indecipherable world with moments of cruelty and bizarre indifference both from the world itself and some of the inhabitants and the people that encounter the immoral and even evil aspects of it do their best when they accept both the outside forces of other people who are immoral or less moral and the uncaring universe and also accept their own moral nature.
You can try to be true to your values and see that others have different or no values or are untrue to theirs and that the environment apparently has no values.
I cannot claim this gives life meaning or value in any objective way that is true on a big scale but it is a way to try to be both honest about the world and at peace with its inconvenient nature.
A sort of complimentary or corollary to this way of looking at the nature of life and morality against the harsh nature of reality comes from another film.
This is of a very different genre but has similar elements. The film Wonder Woman has a take on this from another angle. In the film the protagonist, Wonder Woman, is raised away from men on Paradise Island. They have no men there and train for combat and are isolated from the world of men.
Wonder Woman only knows the Amazons in her childhood. When she decides to leave for the world of men she is warned "they do not deserve you."
She is unsure what that means but chooses at first to help men out of a sense of duty. She was raised being told the Amazons were created to protect the world of men and so it is their duty. She of course encounters men and sees the cruelty, selfishness, stupidity and evil they can and do display in dealing with each other.
She comes to realize that these traits are part of human behavior, perhaps even human nature, and Ares the God of war appeals to her to destroy humanity because they are not worthy of her defense. She says it doesn't matter if they deserve it or not she chooses love.
In other words, she doesn't use an argument claiming to be a logical debate with points for humans tallied on one side and points against them on another and attempts to support claims and counter attempts to undermine them.
She skips the debate about people deserving help altogether and she simply wants to help and defend them because she loves them, regardless of any claims of flaws in them. She will help based on caring and not being concerned whether humans are her equals in ability or morality, or looking at what they can do for her.
People are not really equal. I am not as smart as some people, not as strong as some people, not as attractive as some people, yet I want to have the same basic rights as other people.
You could argue my inferiority means I should get fewer rewards and rights and some people would agree. But where does this go ? Do the weak and vulnerable get left to fend for themselves ? What about the handicapped ? Elderly ? Children ?
If we base our cooperation and willingness to help on the relative financial, political and military power of people then who are we ?
Is this who you want to be ?
Every person has to decide for themselves. Do people deserve help or is the issue really irrelevant ? Should you just help who you can where you can how you can because you are motivated by caring. That doesn't mean accepting any treatment or turning the other cheek or a blind eye. You can believe in both self defense and compassion. You can also believe in boundaries, moderation, personal privacy and other values.
You can also believe in your right to be cautious and compassion. These are not binary choices.
In Scientology we were not shown subtle details about life like these. People are going to be disappointing, hurtful and maybe even to some degree evil no matter how kind or moral you are towards them. But if you give eye for an eye justice you will be rigid and inflexible and at times cruel. If you do nothing you will be allowing evil to flourish and fostering it by tacit consent.
The ruthless and black and white world Scientology presented isn't the real world. Most people are a mix of good and bad, and to try to weigh what they deserve to the tiniest bit misses the point - they do not have to live with how you judge them - YOU do.
In leaving Scientology I found out the villain can win all the time. The world is not fair, life is not just and people do not automatically get what they deserve and we ALSO have feelings of moral responsibility DESPITE the universe not caring about our moral values. We have a moral nature (most of us with different values and to different degrees) but the greater environment does not and apparently some people also do not.
We are affected by our own ethics and the unethical or amoral greater world around us BOTH. This worldview is present in the Coen brothers films. In No Country For Old Men they show a world in which someone may suffer from consequences of their own choices and simultaneously the greater world is indifferent to human morality.
The protagonist steals some money and this has the consequence of people coming to get it back and try to kill him and other people. But the world and some of the other people in it are not constrained by morals or laws in any way. They do whatever they decide to with inconsistent consequences, if any at all.
Bad people enjoy success and comfort sometimes and never get punished while good people get hardships they in no way deserve without justice sometimes and no person or other factor ever intervenes. In short life isn't fair, it never was and never will be but you can also feel responsible for moral failings despite the environment not having any moral nature itself and some people displaying far less morality than you might or far different morality.
Being amoral or nihilistic is a route some people do go on undeniably, but most of us will not do that and very likely would not be happy even trying. Even if some evidence supports the idea that life, human life, is without meaning or even value, it doesn't mean it is objectionable for people to act as if they find meaning or value in life and in morality, as imperfect as both are.
Some antinatalists feel we as individuals and a species would be better off if we never existed because life involves both moral failures and very real suffering. In the metaphor of the blue pill and red pill from The Matrix some have taken to seeing the blue pill as settling for the worldview that things are as they seem and okay but the red pill means finding enlightenment about some deeper, truer, nature to life.
This has been interpreted and spun many ways but the basic ideas are essentially the same. There is another element that some nihilists and antinatalists have added - the black pill. They find no meaning or no positive meaning or value in life and some of them claim that there is no possible way life could have meaning or value for any human beings.
I reject this unilateral decision on several grounds. First off I do not think they have met the burden of proof for such a sweeping statement. There is a burden to establish something and eliminate all rational doubt and they have not even approached meeting it.
Second, they are acting like their experience is the only possible experience anyone can have or the only valid experience. That is absurd. Other people may have a different perspective on life and meaning.
Sometimes I enjoy life and sometimes I do not. I do not wish it to cease for everyone everywhere forever because of the times I do not enjoy it.
Other people might enjoy it a lot more than me and rarely or even never not enjoy it somewhat or desire for it to continue. Who am I to condemn them ?
In other projects like the Fargo film and television series the Coen brothers show this indecipherable world with moments of cruelty and bizarre indifference both from the world itself and some of the inhabitants and the people that encounter the immoral and even evil aspects of it do their best when they accept both the outside forces of other people who are immoral or less moral and the uncaring universe and also accept their own moral nature.
You can try to be true to your values and see that others have different or no values or are untrue to theirs and that the environment apparently has no values.
I cannot claim this gives life meaning or value in any objective way that is true on a big scale but it is a way to try to be both honest about the world and at peace with its inconvenient nature.
A sort of complimentary or corollary to this way of looking at the nature of life and morality against the harsh nature of reality comes from another film.
This is of a very different genre but has similar elements. The film Wonder Woman has a take on this from another angle. In the film the protagonist, Wonder Woman, is raised away from men on Paradise Island. They have no men there and train for combat and are isolated from the world of men.
Wonder Woman only knows the Amazons in her childhood. When she decides to leave for the world of men she is warned "they do not deserve you."
She is unsure what that means but chooses at first to help men out of a sense of duty. She was raised being told the Amazons were created to protect the world of men and so it is their duty. She of course encounters men and sees the cruelty, selfishness, stupidity and evil they can and do display in dealing with each other.
She comes to realize that these traits are part of human behavior, perhaps even human nature, and Ares the God of war appeals to her to destroy humanity because they are not worthy of her defense. She says it doesn't matter if they deserve it or not she chooses love.
In other words, she doesn't use an argument claiming to be a logical debate with points for humans tallied on one side and points against them on another and attempts to support claims and counter attempts to undermine them.
She skips the debate about people deserving help altogether and she simply wants to help and defend them because she loves them, regardless of any claims of flaws in them. She will help based on caring and not being concerned whether humans are her equals in ability or morality, or looking at what they can do for her.
People are not really equal. I am not as smart as some people, not as strong as some people, not as attractive as some people, yet I want to have the same basic rights as other people.
You could argue my inferiority means I should get fewer rewards and rights and some people would agree. But where does this go ? Do the weak and vulnerable get left to fend for themselves ? What about the handicapped ? Elderly ? Children ?
If we base our cooperation and willingness to help on the relative financial, political and military power of people then who are we ?
Is this who you want to be ?
Every person has to decide for themselves. Do people deserve help or is the issue really irrelevant ? Should you just help who you can where you can how you can because you are motivated by caring. That doesn't mean accepting any treatment or turning the other cheek or a blind eye. You can believe in both self defense and compassion. You can also believe in boundaries, moderation, personal privacy and other values.
You can also believe in your right to be cautious and compassion. These are not binary choices.
In Scientology we were not shown subtle details about life like these. People are going to be disappointing, hurtful and maybe even to some degree evil no matter how kind or moral you are towards them. But if you give eye for an eye justice you will be rigid and inflexible and at times cruel. If you do nothing you will be allowing evil to flourish and fostering it by tacit consent.
The ruthless and black and white world Scientology presented isn't the real world. Most people are a mix of good and bad, and to try to weigh what they deserve to the tiniest bit misses the point - they do not have to live with how you judge them - YOU do.
Last edited:
Good stuff!
