The Good, the Evil, and the Ethics

The distinction between good, evil, and Ethics.

Most People speak of “good” and “evil.” In Ethics, there is a triad of stances to take. Here I would like to break it down:

UnEthical – “evil,” the unacceptable area. Breaking these three Laws:

1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of anOther

2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone

3. Do not willfully defraud anOther (which can only happen without fully informed consent)

Doing these things is “evil,” and I can’t think of anything “evil” that falls outside of these things. I welcome input on that score.

Ethical – Anything that does not break those Laws.

Upholding the Betterment Ethic – “good.” Keeping an eye out for how You can make things better, big or small, for Those around You and creating them.

Now, here’s an example of a situation where the choice is an Ethical one. You’re walking down the street on a winter’s day, and pass by a bridge going across a wide stream. As You reach the far side of the bridge, You see a woman clinging off the edge above the icy waters below.

She sees You and calls desperately for some help.

At this juncture, it is Ethical to keep walking, but surely is not upholding the Betterment Ethic. She is not Your responsibility, and so there are no obligations...

Let’s say You go out on the bridge, a bit slippery with ice. When You reach Her, You can brace Yourself, grab Her wrists, and pull Her to safety. Ethical, and upholding the Betterment Ethic.

Or… If You’re a psychopath, You might pry Her fingers off and watch Her fall, or extort – “What’s it worth to You for Me to save You?” UnEthical, “evil.”

Most of Us Humans would help Her up – 90% and more of Us. Or at least do what We could. Most of Us are caring Ones, willing to help out – calling someOne to assist if We can’t pull Her up Ourselves.

It may not seem like it, that so many of Us are willing to help overall, but Most are struggling and have little to nothing to give in help – starving children in another country may be of concern, but when One is on the brink of starvation Oneself, it’s difficult to help those children out.

Imagine if none of Us needed money. We did not have to add energy into the system to get something to live on, whether in the form of trade, barter, or any representational token. Where We can choose how We live – from a cave to a mansion, from utilitarian to extravagant, on a farm or in a city, whatever appeals to Us.

With most of Us at least Ethical, as well as a high percentage adherents to the Betterment Ethic, We might expect to see a peaceful society. One with high innovation and creativity. One with scant motive to break the Laws. An Ethical society.

And in such a society, the need for a legal system vanishes. Most all of the legal system is surrounding elements of commerce. With no need for money, for accounting for Our Human energy input, there is no commerce, per se. We may still trade things, but not because if We don’t We will starve. With commerce no longer a thing, what little is left deals with those three Laws.

And if We solve problems Ethically, including (but not limited to) the problems caused by any One breaking those three Laws, that legal system is useless. Those who care will solve the problems, and if there are no problems...then there’s no problem.

And in this, We will have a society of Ethical sovereigns.

As usual, I offer links to the work that shows how We can co-create better here, without psychopaths promoted to power, but rather the caring Ones promoted to take care of things:

.

Odysee playlist:

The Detailed Blueprint: https://odysee.com/@amaterasusolar:8/the-detailed-blueprint-vocal-redo:9?lid=eeff9e0c80138ce03e22d76bcd5f2f873ff46b72

.

Articles:

What is a GentleOne? (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/what-is-a-gentleone

Can You Prove that I’m Not Sovereign? (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/can-you-prove-that-im-not-sovereign

Walking the Walk (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/walking-the-walk

Technological Nature (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/technological-nature

Money... Do We Need It? (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/money-do-we-need-it?sd=pf

.

---

.

Signature:

.

Endia – A Short Story by Amaterasu Solar

http://tapyoureit.boards.net/thread/260/endia

Quite the Opposite – A Short Story for Change – by Amaterasu Solar

http://tapyoureit.boards.net/thread/72/quite-opposite-short-story-change

The Abundance Paradigm – A Novella by Amaterasu Solar

http://tapyoureit.boards.net/thread/242/abundance-paradigm-novella

.

My father taught Me never to believe anything. He told Me to place probabilities and adjust them as new data come along, asking the question, "Does that explain what I see?," when evaluating data. He was an aerospace engineer, and worked with T Townsend Brown (see My featured vid on Odysee or YouToilet). From a very early age I was concerned that the way I was told things worked, in terms of government and social affairs, did not explain what I saw. So the first few decades I worked to determine WHY this was.

I wound up in banking, seeing the flow of things in the headquarters of a major bank in Los Angeles. I became intimately familiar with the flow of money, and economics. I asked the question, "Why do We use money?"

When the web arrived, My research capabilities flourished, and I learned much that explained what I saw, but the only explanations I found for why We use money started with trade and barter, which are still money in a direct form, and did not answer the WHY. Then, I came upon the explanation that these were used because, with a finite amount of stuff, it was to ensure that We got Our "fair share" in a scarcity environment, in exchange for the work We added.

From this I realized the WHY. We were accounting for Our energy input into things. And that We needed to do this because the Human energy was scarce compared to what We needed to be produced (back then).

I also discovered that over half Our planet's wealth was "owned" by fewer than 100 Humans...

I was very interested in psychology, too. And studied it deeply, being fascinated by psychopathy, focusing on that aberration, learning that They had discovered a gene that manifested Individuals who were incapable of love, compassion, caring, and empathy for Others – primary psychopaths. Seeing that the wealth was so disproportionate, and that the families who "owned" it inbred, what would explain what I saw would be that They wanted to retain that psychopathic gene. Given that the wealth could feed, clothe, house ALL of Us (and give Us freedom) abundantly and many times over, and yet None set forth to care for Humanity, I had to give probability approaching 100% that They are psychopaths, as that explains perfectly what I see, and answers My quest for why the way I was told things worked did not explain what I saw.

And I asked... If I was a psychopath, with enough wealth to buy anything and anyOne I wanted to, and given that money = power (power over Others is something psychopaths seek), would I be motivated to create a false "reality" for the masses and thereby manipulate Them? I think You can figure out what answer I came up with. And would that explain what I see? Absolutely.

Now, given that money is merely the accounting token used to account for Our Human energy, it would follow that free energy would threaten fully the accounting for Our energy. If I was a psychopath, with enough money to buy sites like Wikipedia, the media, the education system, etc., would I do all I could to suppress and hide free energy?

And given I personally know that electrogravitics offers both gravity control and energy from the aether (the electromagnetic field that pervades the universe), and that it went into black projects, such efforts to hide and suppress would explain what I see completely.

So I am neither a "conspiracy theorist," nor am I a "conspiritard," but rather... I am a conspiracy analyst. And given this analysis, knowing that conspiracies are the NORM in history and that they didn't just stop some years back, I conclude that conspiracies abound. That explains perfectly what I see.

.

Love always.