I don’t believe the idea that ‘nothing is inherently good or bad’ grants everybody the automatic right to do anything, like rape cocaine and snort babies. Instead, it grants everybody the right to unconditional forgiveness. It says, “You’re free to do whatever you want, but there’s a direction you’ll like and a direction you won’t like. Choose the latter as much as you want to, the former will always be there for you, but be warned.”
Instead of specific actions or things being good or bad, good and bad are directions; only they’re not called ‘good’ and ‘bad’. The directions are ‘toward God’ and ‘away from God’, or ‘for the good of the limited, imaginary self’ and ‘for the good of the infinite, real self’. So instead of specific actions or deeds being inherently bad and rendering them spiritually off-limits (which would disrupt the law of free will), it is not the action that contracts or expands you, but the motive.
There is only one moment in which experience happens.
Let’s say, at this moment, you’re here:
Limited self/illusion/ego<—————|—————->Infinite self/reality/God
If you push someone to the ground with anger and hatred, perhaps you’d move to here:
Limited self/illusion/ego<———|———————->Infinite self/reality/God
As you assert your limitedness, your ability to affect the world diminishes. The angry man in the above situation asserts that he is separate from the man he pushes; he is unaware that all humans share the same predicament.
If you push him to the ground to rescue him from being hit by a car, perhaps you’d move to here:
Limited self/illusion/ego<———————-|———>Infinite self/reality/God
As you assert your infiniteness, your power to affect the world increases. The man who saves the other’s life is aware of his identity with others and with mankind as a whole. In a sense, he believes others are himself. Whereas the angry man believes that his self only included his body, the loving man believes that his self includes others. The loving man’s sense of self is larger than the angry man’s sense of self, and therefore he is more powerful.
The same action is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ under different contexts because content is inherently neutral.
Just like the action is neither good or bad, the person is neither good or bad. It is easily seen that the mark representing a person on the continuum is simply a mark, and where it is on the continuum has no effect on its nature. The mark can go as far to the left or the right as it wants, but it always remains a mark. Analogously, all people are equally capable of committing atrocities or taking heroic actions. Therefore, all people are inherently innocent, though every aspect of their lives is uniquely colored by their respective positions on the continuum.
If a certain action is inherently bad, there could be a time in one’s life before he’s committed the action when he is innocent, and then for all time after he’s committed the ‘bad’ action, he is inherently bad. At the time he commits the action, his inherent nature would change from ‘innocent’ to ‘bad.’ However, your inherent nature can’t change–if it could, it wouldn’t be “inherent,” would it?
This is actually the way most people see the world. “That guy does cocaine and eats small children, that’s bad, he’s bad!” Perhaps the guy does cocaine and eats small children. The actions are actually neutral. The man is actually innocent. If the context, which includes the motive, of the action asserts the man’s limitedness (which is much more likely in this scenario, but never guaranteed), that limited sense of self which spurns such actions is ‘judgment.’ Judgment Day is a constant experience, as the man who experiences his self as infinite experiences a heavenly reality, whereas the man who experiences his self as small and flawed and fragile experiences a hellish one.
In conclusion, all actions are inherently neutral and all people are inherently innocent. So, there. :p
