Friday, September 18, 2009

In all these arguments of...
"Life isn't fair,"
"Why do bad things happen to good people?"
"Everyone should be allowed their own opinion of right and wrong based on what makes them happy,"
"All religions are the same,"
...all of these statements are based on a common theme.

Each of these topics, and many more, assume that being happy is good. So the question we have to think about is "why is happiness considered good and sadness considered bad?" There has to be a reason that these feelings are assumed.

When I feel happy I consider that to be a good feeling. And when I feel sad I consider that a bad feeling. I'm not saying that the thing that made me sad is always bad, but the literal feeling of sadness is never preferred.
Is not the admittance that we all think sadness is bad and happiness is good, proof that there must be something in all of us that sets an equilibrium on how we all perceive life, or the accumulation of good and bad moments?
And must not that equilibrium come from some other source than our own opinions in order to set the commonality in all people?

No matter if you're from Uganda or Des Moines...
No matter if you prefer chicken or steak...
No matter if the death of your mother makes you cry or gives you relief...
No matter if you love going to church or hate it because it was the church that killed your innocent family in the Crusades...
No matter if you think abortion is murder or simple relief from a would-be consequence...
No matter if you're Hitler finding happiness in power because of others submission or Gandhi finding happiness in submitting so that others may gain the power of freedom...

...for some reason we all think being happy is good and being sad is bad.
Why?

That must mean that good and bad are definite and distinct.
And if you can define a good and a bad feeling, must not you also be able to define a good and a bad action, perception, or standing?

No comments:

Post a Comment