Do people just not care about being moral and righteous?

Are the good of the Earth in the minority?

In order to respond to that, you need to explain what "good" means. If you can give me a universal definition then I'd be happy to give you my thought on it. But subjective terms like pretty, bad, moral or decent are up to everyone to interpret for themselves. Only you can answer your question yourself. You can't get an objective answer to what is the best tasting food either.
 
Are the good of the Earth in the minority?
There seem to be lots of versions of good out there. Some of the most evil, by my estimation, have apparently been very concerned with being moral. I mean, one's morals can justify, have justified, just about every horror imaginable: genocide, rape - the spoils of war - etc.
 
Shades of grey, all shades of grey…………. People do bad things people do good things, very few ‘good’ people or ‘bad’ people exist (although I am sure you can all throw up some extreme examples). Most people during the course of a life do some good and some bad things (whichever way you want to define those two terms.)
 
When certain religions tell their followers that they can be "absolved " of all their wrong doings when they die and get into their "heaven" , then those people will do about anything for they do not care because they still get their "heaven" as it were anyway. Not all people believe that but that is what the absolution when given final rights is all about. So go out and kill for you too will be allowed into "heaven".
 
Morality and righteousness are everchanging concepts, but as it looks now they are about to be erased, and good riddens, who need such limitations to interpret existance? Maybe something for minimalists who are stuck in the past.
 
We could look at Norsefire's absence as an example of the problem:

Were the people who banned him moral and righteous do to so?
Was he moral and righteous to do what he did that got him banned?

Each will find support. (ers)
 
Back
Top