“All social violence has only
one base, the obligation to exist, which is already in itself the
greatest of violence against others.”
Morality without the research of
the truth on the reality of the world, the reality of the facts which
are truths in themselves, therefore without the truth about reality
of human beings, of its mind in particular, is not morality.
Life is produced mechanically by
the universe which is itself a great mechanism. There is nothing
extraordinary in life nor in our human existence.
Our incomprehension, of the
mechanical production of the Life of the universe, and what we are
more particularly, so, this incomprehension is not a mark of our
complexity nor of our splendor, but rather of our limited mental
faculties.
It took more than 2 billion
years of evolution so that Life invents beings who invent morality.
That is to say how morality does not interest the Life (Life with a
capital L). Morality is also counterproductive for the Life that
requires only replication, and no thinking beings.
From the moment a thinking being
(me, for example) imagine that life is useless and that according to
the moral principles invented by life itself, since I am one, it is
better not to replicate himself to avoid creating sentient beings,
potentially suffering, wretched, etc.
Well, from this moment, we can
say that Life erred by creating my existence and that of similar
beings capable of understanding this long tirade.
The Universe has no morality,
Life does not have any more. Life has only one rule which is the
reproduction of anything, anyhow, anytime, anywhere, if conditions
permit.
There can be no moral behind the
fact that life eats life, and for billions of years, starting with
phagocytosis, then the “biovorism” (eater of life) for
multicellular we are.
There is no morality in the fact
that life cannot synthesize itself from the inert molecules that are
necessary, but must steal them to other sensitive lives, and
themselves obliged to exist.
Life is not moral since life
imposes life with anybody, in any environment, and any condition, for
very variable duration and always too long for those which do not
appreciate or too short for those which manage better.
It seems normal to say that the
world must be cleaned before installing a child, which seems to mean
that installing a child in an unhealthy world is not very moral. But
if that is the case how can you consider creating an unhealthy
existence, that is to say, create a child with physical or mental
defects?
Where is the difference ? Is it
not immoral? Is it not in fact much more immoral? Conceiving a child
physically or mentally handicapped, is it not as handicapping
(voluntarily or not) your child after birth?
Why does the Law sanction only
the second case whereas to conceive request even more
responsibilities more questionings than to educate a child? What is
better? Install a healthy child in an unhealthy world, or an
unhealthy child in a healthy world, or still worse an unhealthy child
in an unhealthy world?
How dare you bet on the health of
the child whom you create?
Morality is a cultural
construction, it has no innate base, for the reason that humans are
born virgins of cultural significance. At birth each being is
introduced into an existing culture.
Culture will continue its
evolution, ancient evolution whose origin is the first living cell.
Nobody can argue that individuals would manufacture culture by
genetic organization simply with cell division, nobody can defend the
innate morality.
Does all animal species have a
moral? However they have similar behavior to ours. Does the behavior
of the ant devoted to its anthill is moral or results from
mechanisms?
Moral culture, like all the rest
of the culture is impregnated in us according to our activities in
our environment. We acquire a culture according to the environment
and the people in it. If the only environment is nature, then culture
will result in only muscle activity and feelings collected in this
environment.
Moral comes from significance
given to stereotyped behaviors, the significance being itself
something of vague and related to our experiments.
Can I morally or ethically make
an existence, therefore to force somebody to exist? No, of course, I
cannot.
Can I arbitrarily and
dictatorially fabricate a life, therefore force somebody to exist?
Yes, it’s easy, a woman can (if she finds a sperm to associate with
an ovule in her uterus) and a man can also (if a woman lends her womb
and ovum or can coerce her).
Creating life is not a moral
action because the “non-existence”, which did not ask anything,
is only created for those that already exist by those which already
exist. And as this creation is not mastered, it is the height of
immorality and amorality.
It must be either stupid or
animal or slaver, even sadistic, to create a life that has asked
nothing, under conditions that are not mastered, both the creation of
life itself and the life’s toboggan that will borrow this existence
to end up perishing.
You delude the children. You talk
to them of love, but do you love them? The believers invented
paradise and eternity to justify themselves, like a pretext and
excuse to the short life of misery on Earth that they offer to their
offspring.
Most aberrant is that they
propose the hell to them, and that, it would be extremely fun if
there were something to laugh about at creating an existence which
does not have any means to prevent the creators from acting.
Evil necessary for life to exist,
but not necessarily for intelligence, is always present so underlying
and often unconscious, but present throughout the life of each, which
induces all conflicts and all types conflicts.
Because nobody is really abused
by the obligation to exist imposed by the parents of the social
request, and with his narrow complicity (example: hospitals, clinics,
midwives, obstetricians, family allowance, nurseries, etc.).
The first thing to explain to
your children, is how you can talk about morality, respect, and human
rights since you have them imposed to exist in this unhealthy and
warlike world whereas you do not even control the reproduction ?
How will you explain to the child
the obligation to exist whereas himself did not ask to exist? How
will you explain to him the obligation to exist with a weak body
(more or less heavy handicap)?
How will you explain the
obligation to exist with a weak mind (IQ below one hundred)? How will
you explain the obligation to exist with poor parents, weak-minded
parents, unemployed parents?
How will you explain to him the
obligation to exist in a slum when others are born in a castle? How
will you explain the obligation to exist in the inequality of birth
and how you will compensate him for his social and individual
handicaps, whereas he did not ask to exist?
How will you explain to this
child, truthfully, honestly, respecting the moral you want him to
inculcate, all these points and many others?
How are you going to explain that
the country of Human Rights does not respect the prohibition of
deliberately endangering the lives of others, forcing it to exist
while no mastery of procreation, the creation of its existence, that
of the child who does not need to exist, except for the desire of
parents and social needs, but not his?
How will you explain the
obligation to exist, to this disabled child, that you can never
compensate him for the moron existence you offer him for nothing?
Even if there were a god, we
would not have to know, and especially not to say that there is one.
We would not have to know nor to say that there are eternity,
paradise and hell. Because the first must be deserved, be gained,
without hypocrisy, without knowing it, by personal attitude simple.
The good behavior of a life must be acquired without reason, and
especially without carrots and sticks.
However, “the creation of an
existence serves only those which already exist…” And besides, if
a god wanted to attract you in his paradise, why wouldn’t a devil
like to attract you in his paradise, that the other, this malignant
and political god naturally calls hell?
What is the moral of a god that
produces a human being, this so weak and small being compared to the
deity that relatively he is worth less than a microbe? Is it not a
disabled of divine creation?
What is worth the omnipotence of
a god who creates such a weak being? Why a being manufactured from
scratch, sensitive, suffering, mortal, would have duties towards the
engineer who builds it with all his weak characteristics? Yes, what
is the value of “his” Morality ?
Religious morality and secular
ethics want to fight against suffering and human misery, it’s at
least what they claim. But if that is the case why do not they want
to face the facts that misery and pain begin by creating an
existence?
It is, however, easy to
understand that the creation of an existence is useful only for the
people who already exist. This is an absolute truth. Why these avid
people of morality for themselves, don’t have any for this child,
their own child?
Is it not easy to understand: no
life, no risk, no life no hell, neither on Earth, nor elsewhere…
The most despicable is to propose
to him, in addition to this so terrible death itself, the choice of
hell or paradise, whereas if this existence had not been created,
nothing could happen to him.
It is totally stupid to think
that an omni-intelligent being has fun to offer such choices and
living conditions for beings that he himself creates moronic, feeble,
sensitive, potentially suffering, etc.
less than microbes compared with
him the Perfect Omni-all, to install them on a toboggan full of traps
and dangers ending in an often horrible death even for most innocent.
Besides, all humans are innocent
to exist and having to live without free will and without
omni-intelligence. Without omni-intelligence we cannot be responsible
for anything… If there was an omni-intelligent being, it would be
solely responsible for the mismanagement of his world.
(It is necessary to slice,
gentlemen scientists, if God is a fact, it can be analyzed
scientifically. That must be resolved, because a human being is not
the same if created by a deity or results from the working of the
universe.)
Religions, ideologies,
patriotism, have been done to prevent us from claiming our rights to
life healthy, equitable, reasonable,
and to forbid us to simply ask
about the reason for our existence which has no other cause than the
service of our spawners and their social accomplices since the
creation of our lives is yet a crime under their own laws.
When Madam creates, it is
blindly, randomly, without knowing which type of people will be,
physically and mentally, the being which she generates.
Life is a lottery. The child is
the result of a game of Russian roulette of which it is a victim in
any event. Gender, IQ, health, corpulence, mental and physical
defects, are the various housing to the bullets of the revolver
barrel that will serve his parents for giving birth.
If morality was innate
(interesting this innateness), why would there be religious educators
and lay people teaching what is the good and evil, right and bad
conduct, ethics?
Humans will never solve their
moral and ethical problems if they do not think about the issue of
creating an existence, the absolute safety of the child, his health,
his welfare, his introduction in society without its agreement,
his education without its
agreement, and to let him know without mental maneuvers, he is on the
planet by simple desire of two people who could just as well not make
it.
But do not forget to explain to
him why he was born handicapped!
* [The obligation to exist
implies the fact of not being responsible to exist.]
To conclude, I repeat the initial
sentence:
“All social violence has only
one base, the obligation to exist, which is already in itself the
greatest of violence against others.”
If
there was only one question that all those, who wish to manufacture a
new life, were to ask themselves, it should be this one:
“Now
that I have made a suffering being, how to undo suffering? ”
Dead
end
E.
Berlherm (May 2016)
