The basic idea behind my inferiority / superiority complex theory is that most everyone wants to have their lives predetermined and to have free will, to deserve the credit for a good life and to avoid the blame for a bad one. When they can do something, it is both a miracle and the result of hard work, they are both talented and diligent. Doing something badly is both the result of lacking talent and being lazy. We want a world of luck and a world where we make our own luck, where both the most talented wins and the one who works the hardest and wants it the most wins. People are both unworthy of speaking to God and able to curse him. We can do everything and nothing.

Trusting others with ideas is hard.

John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism declares what usually results in the most pleasure to be the most moral action, that to chose an action because it usually results in more pleasure than pain is moral behavior. Thus, in order to have the greatest chance of being moral., people must collect as much history as they can hold so that they can know what the normal consequences of actions will be. Noting that, going back in time, the first people to act must have been acting immorally because they could not have known what pleasures their actions would bring, it can also be seen that uneducated people and children have little chance of acting morally, whether they want to or no. It is completely out of their hands because they simply lack the idea of what is right and what is wrong. That feature seems to appeal to people because it always gives an excuse for any sort of behavior. The little girl hit her brother because, in her not-so-vast experience, she had noticed that hitting him first tended to prevent him from hitting her.

    Where Mill requires people to have an education to be moral, Kant says "Conscience is not a thing to be acquired, and it is not a duty to acquire it; but every man, as a moral being, has it originally within him." (Kant, The Science of Right)

"What are the ends which are also duties? They are: A. Our own perfection, B. Happiness of others."
- Kant, Metaphysical Elements of Ethics

And it is very important to not invert those!

Explaining: "A. To be worthy of the humanity that dwells within us"

self-respect, physically and mentally prepared, and integrity. :"B. for that one should sacrifice his own happiness, his true wants in order to promote that of others, would be a self-contradictory maxim if made a universal law," recalling that you are part of everyone, "our self-love cannot be separated from the need to be loved," guarding against poverty and incompetence.

Our inferiority complex protests that no, really, everyone is better than me, that the best thing I could do would be to sacrifice myself for them. Our superiority complex claims that, in order to have my own happiness, others must suffer. Or maybe that's the other way around.

Kant says that amoral acts are those that are self-destructive if imagined on a universal scale. For instance, if it was moral to lie and everyone did whenever they felt like it, the concept of lying would no longer exist (the word lying would just mean talking, basically, so we would just use the word talking) and so you could no longer lie and be moral in that way. Since humans are creatures that exist for extended periods of time (usually indefinite), we need morality rules that will hold longer than an instant. So, no self-destructive acts.

For if it merely pleases him, he must not call it beautiful" - individual taste doesn't name the properties of things. One of Kant's books.

"Every rational being is an end in itself"- Guess who? Well, Ayn Rand said it, too, but this phrase was Kant in F.o.t.M.o.M.

As a sum up: rational implies consciousness of right and wrong (whether you could will that your personal actions be a universal law) and thus responsibility. Not being rational comes to Tolstoy's point about humans being animals (not as an inevitable thing). Thus continuity is preserved and sentence transitions make a comeback.

"For it is not enough to do what is right, but we should practice it solely on the grounds of its being right."
- Kant, The Critique of Aesthetic Judgment

For otherwise, we will confuse the issue, as Tolstoy did when: (OR NOT AT ALL) "His feeling for her was not love, but a passionate desire to love her"
- Tolstoy

Well, that was a while ago. Anyway, I'm back to expound on the topics of right and wrong. We hold the power of creation and destruction in our hands. We hold the knowledge of right and wrong in our souls. If killing is wrong, then is God doing wrong? Fine.

Laura Chapin
The Character of Fritz Zwicky: Everything is connected.

    Fritz Zwicky lived from 1898 to 1974, born on Valentines Day. He was noted for his strong personality across the astronomy world, a world he felt didn't take him seriously. He proposed many new theories and had an idea of how people should approach problems, a technique he called a morphological approach, where he defined morphology as "the study of the basic patterns of things." (Zwicky, 7) Notably, he was the first to use the idea of rich clusters not having enough luminous mass to account for their gravitational force as evidence of dark matter. He originate the idea of neutron stars. He did most of his work at CalTech because he loved the mountains and was a regular mountaineer. There were instances of other people receiving credit for his discoveries and of such mistakes being corrected. He greatly praised scientists he saw as having followed the morphological method even before it was formulated.

    Bitterness may seem to be detected in such statements as "It is, however, unbelievable how the voodooism of accuracy is successfully promoted to occupy important telescope time while the real reason for all of this is to prevent imaginative men from making too many discoveries." (Zwicky 26) He coined the term "supernova."