There is no good or evil, only power

Morality, much like the physics of space-time, is lacking an absolute frame of reference that would make the calculations that much easier. There is no such thing as right or wrong because each civilisation, demographic, group and individual have their own moral frame of reference. Throughout the ages, we have conflicts between an imperialistic western world against traditional Islamic values, between Christian missionaries and scientific heretics, between pro-life and pro-choice campaigners, between a spouse and family whether to pull the plug on the life support of a family member, between a couple in an argument about the remote control... what all conflicts have in common is multiple belligerents all of whom are convinced that they are right and that their opponents are wrong. And who is right? It's impossible to answer that because, in my opinion, there is no such thing as right.

At the highest level, the moral compass is defined by the laws and customs of our society and is supposed to reflect the people of the world. But it's impossible to define a moral correctness that everyone can agree to. Sure people try to come up with an answer but everyone's answer is different. Everything has been tried, from perceived divine intervention, inheritance of absolute power, to the guy with the biggest stick makes the call. Even numerical majority or plurality rules has its limits. People with power still make the decisions, human rights activists or cult leaders can create majority and military powers or supreme court judges can ignore a majority. It all boils down to various people trying to impose their view of right on everyone else. But if there is no such thing as an absolute right then how are we supposed to know what to do?

Imagine you are a person with an idea to change the world. Maybe you want to take more money off the rich and give to schools, or to prohibit your fellow people from being killed before they have emerged from their mother's womb, or that guns should be banned, or that every nation should have nuclear weapons, or no nation should be allowed to use coal as a fuel, or maybe you want to eradicate a certain sequence from the human genome because you believe it causes aggression or criminal tendencies or some other characteristic that you would be rid of in your perfect world. The point is that you don't find the status quo acceptable and believe your change is 'good' based on your own moral compass. But as with any change, some people will agree with you, some people will disagree with you and most people don't care and/or are easily convinced or ignored if you have sufficient 'power'.

Remember that one man's activist is another man's cult leader. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. You may think you are Gandhi but to some people you are Hitler. Are you willing to take that chance? Even if you do nothing, someone else will come along with their own moral compass and enact their own vision intended to change on the world for the better, which may or may not be to your liking. You are asked to stand up and fight for what you believe in but so is the guy in front of you facing in the opposite direction.

As much as every righteous person in the world would like to believe that their moral compass is accurate, that god is on their side, that theirs is the side of good, the side of justice, the side of truth, there can be no such assurance for anyone. There is no good or evil. There is no right or wrong. There is only our way and their way.

The morality of society is always changed by people with various types of power, be it military might (WW2 or the French war of independence) or the power of persuasion/manipulation (eg. Gandhi or Hitler or modern day politics) or the proliferation of Pandora's box-like scientific knowledge (Nuclear technology or human genetic engineering). The rightness or wrongness of these people doesn't matter a damn. Good or evil is meaningless. Power decides everything.

If there is a way around this, then I don't see it. Perhaps, when we face a fundamental moral decision for which there is no convincing arguments, no common ground, no compromise, when we are forced to make a decision that will change our civilisation one way or another, we can either fight it out and see whose side is more powerful, or we can just cast dice.

Should I stay or should I go

I do not believe in the concept of a 'one true unique' soul-mate. And even if one did exist, it would surely be ridiculously unlikely that more than a few hundred people across the globe of 6 billion would ever find theirs. Instead it seems more likely that there are a variety of people who would be 'good enough' to have as a life partner.

So even when you are with who you think may be 'the one', there are likely to be plenty of people out there that are just as good, if not better for you. But if you were to leave your current partner in order to try and find someone better, you run the risk of not finding someone better and having irreparably discarded the person who was not the best possible partner, but the the best partner possible.

This makes the decision to settle with someone a sort of risk/reward expectancy analysis, which depends on factors like your age, your confidence and ability to meet people and how good you think your current partner is compared to the norm or to who you think you may be able to get if you were a free agent.

And from a theoretical perspective, it seems that in order to make an informed decision when the time comes, you should get a good sampling of who is out there. Sleep around, date around, be in plenty of relationships. Go on blind dates and try out people recommended by friends in case your own radar is directing you towards a particular type of person who may not be the ideal type for you. Love, lose, get your heart broken, break some hearts, rinse, repeat.

But an interesting phenomenon I have become aware of is that there are some couples I know of (friends, colleagues, friends of friends, etc) maybe in their early or mid twenties, who are planning on settling down with the partner they have had since they were 16 or so. The problem is they have absolutely no perspective. They don't know what's out there and can't possibly compare the relationship they have with what they could have with other people.

Does that mean they are foolish to settle down with the first person and only person they have ever been with? If they are happy now, should they throw it away in order to find out if they can be more happy?

Some of these people will indeed be somewhat happy for the rest of their lives. After all, in the olden times, and even in present day cultures that have arranged marriages, people tend to have one and only one partner for their whole lives. And there are plenty of stories that at least some of those involved are reasonably happy and that is without even having a say about your life partner.

But in my opinion, most people in more liberal cultures where seperation is an option will run into problems. Maybe you wake up one day when your 40 regretting that you've never tried anyone else on for size. Will that lead to resentment of your current partner, or cheating, or maybe a seperation leaving you single and alone when you are well past your dating prime? I think regret is the biggest danger. It can eat you up inside and leave you feeling that you have wasted your life.

In theory, surely it is best to enforce your own personal rule to have had at least 10 relationships of at least 3+ months by the time your 30 (or similar) and then free yourself to make a permanent commitment with someone you feel worthy. But in reality, fear of ending up alone is something that terrifies almost everybody. In my opinion, people overestimate the likelihood that their current partner is the best they are likely to find and have a tendency to 'settle' more than they should. But in reality, when you are with someone who appears to tick all the boxes and you are fairly happy, to leave them just because you haven't been with all that many different people can seem... silly.

What happens when you die

If I am in a room in a meeting and I decide to leave, my participation in the meeting ends even though the meeting goes on without me. But for me, what happens next? Well, I still exist. I have left the meeting but I can still perceive that the meeting happened and may be still going on without me. I just continue with my own perceived reality.

If I spend a few years in college and that time comes to an end then my participation in that time period comes to an end. But for me, what happens next? Well, I'm still there to perceive that that episode happened for me and I continue to live my life into the next time period.

If I die, my existence will end but life will go on without me. But for me, what happens next? Nothing. And that is what I just can't comprehend.

Consider the concept of an afterlife. If you believe in that sort of thing, then you have nothing to worry about because now death is merely a transformation from one plane of existence to another. After you die, your physical body may be lost but you still exist and are there in heaven or hell to perceive that your mortal life happened and your immortal life has just begun.

It's the same with reincarnation, or the idea of dead people becoming ghosts still in existance although physically incapable of interacting with the "living" people. All these seem to me to have been invented to stop dealing with this existenial predicament.

Maybe the uncomfortable truth is that when you die, you no longer exist.