RE: What is Morally Right is What Doesn't Cause Harm to Other Beings
It is that simple. Then why do we have such a problem when it comes to not harming others?
@tobedata asks: "Is there a possibility of changing violence - not by becomeing non-violent, that is merely the opposite of 'what is'?"
And goes on: "...can envy, with all its implications, be changed without time being involved at all, knowing that the word change itself implies time - not even transformed, for the very word transform means to move from one form to another form - but to radically end envy without time?"
"We are always afraid of something that we have never seen, perceived - something not experienced."
So, are we so afraid of what others will do to us that we preempt this by acting first?
The two @tobedata's posts I've quoted from are:
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@tobetada/to-change-the-world-you-must-change-within-11
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@tobetada/to-change-the-world-you-must-change-within-12
Because even if a principle is simple to understand, it doesn't mean that people understand it, or want to, or have tried. It takes wanting to learn. This isn't taught in schools...