Nothing prevents the ignorant from crim Ankara

Nothing prevents the ignorant from crimes except disability. The ignorant may kill, he may betray, he may lie; Then he might think himself after that he is a good person. Do not trust the ignorant, no matter what the goodness and the virtue claimed. Certainly, I mean also those with complex ignorance and not simple ignorance, those with no science or knowledge. Those with complex ignorance are those who may learn and collect a huge amount of science, but it is a false and empty science that harms more than what is useful.

There is no consideration of quantity, i.e. how much knowledge you obtain, but the consideration by type, by the quality of the knowledge you obtain, even if it is only one book. You may read one book, which carries new and creative ideas, that affect you positively, more than 100 books, all of which contain repeated traditional ideas based on copying and pasting, and no new knowledge can be obtained from them. It is understood that our nation is a quantity one, not quality. Throughout its history, it has been concerned with preserving and collecting information without any mental analysis and logical criticism for it, so that this will be in the field of its investment through creative and innovative processes that are outside from the usual and vulgar patterns. The real civilization is at the origin of innovation and creativity, not blind imitation and repetition.

A study at the University of California Santa Barbara showed that science automatically leads people to embrace good ethics even if the human was an anarchist atheist. Ignorance automatically pushes people to fallen morals even if they are claiming goodness. Ignorance and knowledge play an important role in the morals towards the up or down.

This is apart from a matter that is most important in the field of ethics, which is the quality of the social and economic system and their role in the rise and fall of ethics. Because we all know, as I think, that when the social and economic system is excellent, then morality improves according to them. And when they are bad, then it automatically gets worse together with them.

Do not talk to me about developing and recommending morals and education without providing excellent social and economic system first because morals are always linked to these systems prosperity or decline. All studies of psychology and sociology prove what I have mentioned above, and our reality and our experiences testify to that, too. You want me to be a good person? First secure my basic physiological needs of food, beverage, sex, work, good education and well-being, and then ask me to be a good person. When you provide these needs, I will automatically become a human with good deeds. On the other hand, When you deprive me of my basic needs, you will face the worst of me. This applies to you and the human nature of all people.

This is the general rule, and the secondary rule is that the ideology and its quality after that plays a role, an important one sometimes, in the construction and destruction of morals. Rather, it is, as I believe, a solid part of building the ethical and educational system and a trivial one in the social and economic system.

So, morals makes nonsense and cannot be achieved without a good and solid social and economic system in the first place. Hereafter, comes the role of ideology, its validity, and sublimation in a secondary way in building or destroying the moral system. In addition to the fact that our philosophy and vision for building an ethical and educational system are usually based on weak ideal notions and superficial religious preaching. Such simple emotional preaches are not even valid by themselves for building a whole ethical and educational system. Furthermore, it is definitely not sufficient to build a solid social system or a realistic philosophical vision that saves us from our social and cultural contexts.

All of these are philosophical attempts to reconsider our view of the concept of morals, good and bad. Proceeding from the following question: What is our universe standard of morality and our understanding of it? The answer to this question is determined by another question: Do we really pursue a universal cosmic ethics that is appropriate for all temporal and spatial conditions and with the natural facts that exist, whether among us humans, or whether in the outside world, or do we follow local ethics based only on our philosophy that we inherited from our environment and culture? Where we grew up and drank from its teachings?

There is a big difference between them because local morals may be really valid, but for a special circumstance that fits our traditional environments and culture in a special temporal circumstance as well, other than when it is universal universality, it will be valid for all human civilizations through all temporal times, cultural environments and natural facts. This means that morality may become a system in favor of evil and not in the interest of good, if we adopt it according to only our local perspective, and this will lead not only to a negative impact on other entities that this moral system fails to harmonize with and agree with, but the negative effect will extend to the entity itself that the system of morality emerged from. Perhaps in the end, it will lead to its complete disintegration and demise. And that is the opposite when we make it a universal cosmic ethic that fits with all material and moral entities throughout human history as a whole, so that it cannot be change in any of them after that.

Source of the mentioned study

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-thinking-about-science-triggers-moral-behavior/#:~:text=There%20is%20little%20doubt%20that%20science%20is%20value-laden. & text = Their% 20new% 20study% 2C% 20published% 20in, separate% 20studies% 20to% 20test% 20this.