Does Buddhism allow for pragmatism?

person

There's been alot of discussion following the killing of Osama Bin Laden. About following the precepts, about the Dalai Lama's statement, etc. To me it seems to boil down to whether we can use wisdom and discernment to make a decision based on circumstance or if we should follow the rules. I guess I'm kind of biased towards pragmatism and the previous statement is a little biased.

Would it even be possible for a buddhist in the west to hold a political position? Would being a part of a government that has a military be breaking the precept against killing? Would keeping state secrets be breaking the precept against lying? Is taxation taking what isn't given? Do the advantages of maintaining a secure, peaceful and free society outweigh the sometimes negative means neccessary to do so?

The line between right and wrong generally isn't very clear, especially once you step outside the role of an individual. Can we as buddhists engage in society and keep to our path? If we allow ourselves to use our judgement and wisdom I think so. Its not easy and we're sure to be wrong sometimes and situations sometimes neccessitate imperfect decisions. I guess the traditional answer is to leave society and find a cave somewhere to meditate in. Most of us here are lay practioners who live in the world, I don't think its even possible to do so without some level of pragmatism.

Vincenzi

in a way, the middle way is about pragmatism.

StaticToybox

Well there are plenty of government roles that have nothing to do with the military, though I'm guessing you mean higher office, such as legislative or executive. One can, for example, be a senator and vote for non-violence, example: Jeanette Rankin (who cast the only vote in Congress against entering WW2). I wouldn't say that keeping secrets is lying so long as you're honest about the fact that you can't divulge certain info ("I'm not at liberty to discuss that"). Taxes are necessary for a functioning society, and people benefit from them more than most realize. It's not the same as stealing (which only benefits the thief).

I'd like to reply in more depth to your questions, but I'm posting from my PS3's browser (which doesn't lend itself to indepth posting. Maybe I can give a better response later.

Dakini

"Can we as Buddhists engage in society [that's taking military action] and keep our path"? This is the question I keep raising on these threads about Buddhism and the military, Bin Laden, etc. As Buddhists, to we have an obligation to raise our voice when our government takes actions that go against our principles? I think that would be the right path for Buddhists, rather than acquiescing. No one's ever responded to those questions, though. Maybe the 3rd time's a charm

aMatt

As Buddhists, to we have an obligation to raise our voice when our government takes actions that go against our principles?

No, we don't. In my view, ideally compassion is the only thing that gives impetus to actions. If our government takes actions, our job is to cut through the need to label those actions as good or bad. Then, we are in a position to be compassionate.

Sometimes, the most compassionate thing to do is say nothing. Or, to hug an official in pain, perhaps just to hold a hand, or to speak out. It is always unique to the forces in the moment, and follows no strict unfolding principle except that it is intended to help people find their way out of delusion.

For instance, it might be pointless to say to a man celebrating "it was wrong to kill Osama" and therefore we don't. His joyfulness at the death of his brother is already tearing his heart, implanting an unfavorable future. It might be better to hold his hand or hug him, so we don't lose two brothers with that one bullet. One to death, one to samsara. Does that make sense?

With warmth,

Matt

vinlyn

"Can we as Buddhists" ...

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems as if you are lumping us all together. As we've seen in a number of related threads, we don't all agree on the answer to this one issue, or to many issues.

And look what's happened to religious groups who have tried to act as a block on modern issues. Schism. For example, the schism in the Episcopal churches. In my old community (Falls Church, Virginia), there was a lawsuit over who owned the church and property after the Episcopal's split. To my surprise, after moving here to Colorado, a similar split occurred in the loca Epsicopal churches.

Now, if you are taking it as an individual's responsibility, then yes, I think individuals should make their beliefs known to their representatives.

However, keep in mind, our representatives represent all people, not Buddhist people OR Catholic people OR....

aMatt

In response to the OP, I think that if a buddhist was in office, thier focus might be on voting on behalf of the people who elect them, rather than pressing their personal agenda. For instance, if 90% of a district wanted to go to war, there would be a need to vote to go to war. Or resign. It would be ego that would vote intentionally against the views of the majority of the people they represent.

compassionate_warrior

And look what's happened to religious groups who have tried to act as a block on modern issues. Schism.
Now, if you are taking it as an individual's responsibility, then yes, I think individuals should make their beliefs known to their representatives.

I look at the Quakers, all of whom protested the Vietnam war by withholding the portion of the income tax that was a war add-on. Buddhists seem to be more politically diverse than Quakers.
I'm not aware of any schisms among Episcopaleans. Can you refer me to some info on that, Vinlyn? (PM would probably be best.)

vinlyn

In response to the OP, I think that if a buddhist was in office, thier focus might be on voting on behalf of the people who elect them, rather than pressing their personal agenda. For instance, if 90% of a district wanted to go to war, there would be a need to vote to go to war. Or resign. It would be ego that would vote intentionally against the views of the majority of the people they represent.

Do you think that's the way it works in Buddhist countries...for example, Thailand?

Dakini

Yes, Vin, I was lumping us all together. My mistake. I thought if people took to heart the 1st precept, that they'd all pretty much be on the same page, but apparently not. So how come the Quakers all managed to be on the same page? It's a good question.

What kind of pragmatism are we talking about here, anyway? The gov't making a list of names of people to be overtly or covertly murdered, like the one who's an American citizen that they're trying to bomb in Yemen? Is the OP asking if Buddhism allows for that? Please clarify, person, so we know exactly what we're being asked to consider.

person

What kind of pragmatism are we talking about here, anyway? The gov't making a list of names of people to be overtly or covertly murdered, like the one who's an American citizen that they're trying to bomb in Yemen? Is the OP asking if Buddhism allows for that? Please clarify, person, so we know exactly what we're being asked to consider.

I'm talking about the kind of pragmatism that can make a decision based on circumstances and informed by values. Not making decisions based on ideological beliefs. So in your example, we wouldn't automatically exclude murdering or bombing someone because the first precept says so. But we could decide based on the situation using our wisdom and judgement. Is the person we want to bomb about to commit an act of mass murder? Would it be ok then? Would it be ok for someone to hide a jew in nazi Germany and lie to an SS officer about it? What I'm trying to say is there are no absolutes, this is a slippery slope to go down in politics but as a Buddhist is it ok to do? Can we rely on our wisdom and judgement or do we have to apply hard and fast rules?

aMatt

Do you think that's the way it works in Buddhist countries...for example, Thailand?

Ideally? Yes. Is that how it is? I cannot say, I do not know. Also, it would be have to be a sweeping generalization, because everyone is different.

vinlyn

Yes, Vin, I was lumping us all together. My mistake. I thought if people took to heart the 1st precept, that they'd all pretty much be on the same page, but apparently not. So how come the Quakers all managed to be on the same page? It's a good question. ...

I can't speak at all about the Quakers. But I think in general, nowadays people are much less likely to follow the dictates of any church body. Perhaps that's even more pronounced in the Buddhist religion since 1) there are so many groups within, and 2) we are encouraged to question.

vinlyn

Do you think that's the way it works in Buddhist countries...for example, Thailand?

Ideally? Yes. Is that how it is? I cannot say, I do not know. Also, it would be have to be a sweeping generalization, because everyone is different.

Thailand's government is a mess, and 95% of the elected officials are Buddhist. We've got Thai Buddhists fighting Cambodian Buddhists in border clashes at an ancient Khmer (Cambodian) temple. We've got the Red Shirts and Yellow Shirts and everyone else squabbling (to put it very mildly) in Bangkok over ex-premiere Taksin. Talk about American politics being messy...whew!

compassionate_warrior

Yes, Vin, I was lumping us all together. My mistake. I thought if people took to heart the 1st precept, that they'd all pretty much be on the same page, but apparently not. So how come the Quakers all managed to be on the same page? It's a good question. ...

I can't speak at all about the Quakers. But I think in general, nowadays people are much less likely to follow the dictates of any church body. Perhaps that's even more pronounced in the Buddhist religion since 1) there are so many groups within, and 2) we are encouraged to question.

The Quakers decide things by concensus, there's no church dictate.

I'm talking about the kind of pragmatism that can make a decision based on circumstances and informed by values. Not making decisions based on ideological beliefs. So in your example, we wouldn't automatically exclude murdering or bombing someone because the first precept says so. But we could decide based on the situation using our wisdom and judgement. Is the person we want to bomb about to commit an act of mass murder? Would it be ok then? Would it be ok for someone to hide a jew in nazi Germany and lie to an SS officer about it? What I'm trying to say is there are no absolutes, this is a slippery slope to go down in politics but as a Buddhist is it ok to do? Can we rely on our wisdom and judgement or do we have to apply hard and fast rules?

Great clarification, great topic! Of course it's ok to protect a Jew from extermination and lie about it. That's a clear and easy illustration of the "higher good" principle applied to the precepts. And I agree completely that there's a slippery slope, especially when dealing with the 1st precept. I think we have the obligation to be extremely careful in deliberating about that one, examining our motivation, etc. Can we rely on our wisdom and judgment is one question. Can we trust each other to be completely sincere and open and honest in the process of considering a "waiver" of the 1st precept is possibly more to the point. If the President were a Buddhist, could we trust him to be ruthless in applying Buddhist principles and Buddhist sef-examination in the process of deliberation required before making a decision to waive the 1st precept and issue a murder order of an alleged enemy? Could we trust his intelligence sources as to their accuracy regarding the character of the person in question? And what about a decision to go to war? And can we trust ourselves to be completely impartial in taking such a decision, can we trust ourselves to be honest regarding any possible ulterior motives?

hermitwin

Perhaps its time to change our political system.
With the internet, we can have direct democracy as predicted
by Alvin Toffler.
But of course no politician in his right mind
would want that.

compassionate_warrior

Thailand's government is a mess, and 95% of the elected officials are Buddhist. We've got Thai Buddhists fighting Cambodian Buddhists in border clashes at an ancient Khmer (Cambodian) temple. We've got the Red Shirts and Yellow Shirts and everyone else squabbling (to put it very mildly) in Bangkok over ex-premiere Taksin. Talk about American politics being messy...whew!

Wow. Food for thought. Buddhists are human--who knew? And "Buddhist" doesn't always equate with "practitioner". Sometimes it just means someone's from a Buddhist culture, and they put flowers in front of the Buddha statue at the temple from time to time, so they consider themselves Buddhists. Or maybe they did their socially-required stint at the monastery, so it's official--they're Buddhists! Thanks for the reality check.

Jeffrey

We can do whatever we want. But we reap the karma.

vinlyn

Perhaps its time to change our political system.
With the internet, we can have direct democracy as predicted
by Alvin Toffler.
But of course no politician in his right mind
would want that.

In the States, California probably has the most "direct democracy". What a mess.

person

Can we trust each other to be completely sincere and open and honest in the process of considering a "waiver" of the 1st precept is possibly more to the point. If the President were a Buddhist, could we trust him to be ruthless in applying Buddhist principles and Buddhist sef-examination in the process of deliberation required before making a decision to waive the 1st precept and issue a murder order of an alleged enemy? Could we trust his intelligence sources as to their accuracy regarding the character of the person in question? And what about a decision to go to war? And can we trust ourselves to be completely impartial in taking such a decision, can we trust ourselves to be honest regarding any possible ulterior motives?

Good questions, it certainly seems to get harder to talk about using discernment when it comes to trusting someone else to do it. :skeptic: I suppose this is why our founders chose to be governed by laws instead of men. So maybe there's a difference between Buddhist principles when applied to ourselves and when applied to institutions?

vinlyn

We can do whatever we want. But we reap the karma.

Or do we?

Let me ask it this way: Most of us agree that the celebrating of Bin Laden's death in front of the White House was inappropriate.

So, let's take John Smith that was in front of the WH celebrating. He finishes up about 2 a.m., goes back to his hotel, leaves the next day at 11 a.m. on a flight home to Podunk, Iowa.

Now, here's where the essential question comes in. If you think karma is simply action results in reaction, where's the reaction? He went home and went back to work or back to school.

Or, you think that karma is some sentence and a negative reaction WILL result...somehow.

To me, this is one of the age-old questions within and outside Buddhist circles.

compassionate_warrior

If voting machines can't be trusted, the internet would never work. California's been wanting to secede from the US for generations, anyway. Wasn't it an independent country for a split second in history? After the US won the war over Mexico? But we digress...

vinlyn

Good questions, it certainly seems to get harder to talk about using discernment when it comes to trusting someone else to do it. :skeptic: I suppose this is why our founders chose to be governed by laws instead of men. So maybe there's a difference between Buddhist principles when applied to ourselves and when applied to institutions?

Varying opinions on this, but a key question. You stated it well.

compassionate_warrior

Vinlyn, the stock answer to the issue you raise about John Smith is that karma is an "imponderable", it's workings being too complex to speculate about. So John Smith might get nailed by a bit of ripened karma in his next life, but we'd never know. Also, we don't really know if partying to Bin Laden's death is much of a transgression. In bad taste, perhaps, but...does it violate a precept?

@person I think situations arise in life in which it's just plain REALLY difficult to apply Buddhist principles. And anything involving the 1st precept is the most difficult, I think. Which is why you brought it up for discussion.

and btw, one can say we're governed by laws, but the problem is, humans enforce the laws. It still comes back to men (and these days, women). Ask any Native American (or African American, for that matter) how well the "rule of law" has worked for them. For entire Indigenous nations. The Cherokees won in Federal Court three times, but they still got rounded up and removed to Oklahoma, in defiance of the Supreme Court saying they could stay in Georgia. But we digress again. So much for the rule of law.

hermitwin

When it comes to important issues like smoking pot, we can
have a referendum. But trivial issues like going to war,
dont even bother with congress.

Perhaps its time to change our political system.
With the internet, we can have direct democracy as predicted
by Alvin Toffler.
But of course no politician in his right mind
would want that.

In the States, California probably has the most "direct democracy". What a mess.

hermitwin

When you celebrate someone's death, you cause suffering
to the deceased's relatives.
So, when your loved one dies, dont be surprised if
some people celebrates.

We can do whatever we want. But we reap the karma.

Or do we?

Let me ask it this way: Most of us agree that the celebrating of Bin Laden's death in front of the White House was inappropriate.

So, let's take John Smith that was in front of the WH celebrating. He finishes up about 2 a.m., goes back to his hotel, leaves the next day at 11 a.m. on a flight home to Podunk, Iowa.

Now, here's where the essential question comes in. If you think karma is simply action results in reaction, where's the reaction? He went home and went back to work or back to school.

Or, you think that karma is some sentence and a negative reaction WILL result...somehow.

To me, this is one of the age-old questions within and outside Buddhist circles.

compassionate_warrior

That poor Bin Laden family/clan!

When you celebrate someone's death, you cause suffering
to the deceased's relatives.
So, when your loved one dies, dont be surprised if
some people celebrates.

vinlyn

When you celebrate someone's death, you cause suffering
to the deceased's relatives.
So, when your loved one dies, dont be surprised if
some people celebrates.

Oops...I'm the last in the line of Lynches. They'll have to celebrate my death! And a few of the students I suspended or expelled probably will. Let's party!

compassionate_warrior

Can you all imagine what the Bin Ladens are going through right now? They weren't even given the option of burying their own. Not to mention the extreme embarrassment of the whole mess. None of them can probably ever visit the US again; they used to work here and have residences here. And they've done nothing wrong.

Spaceless

It is humane and nature, for a big wealthy family helps the less wealthy family with financial and technological assistance, solely on the intention of compassion and benevolence would make the world a better place to live in. Compassion and benevolence are pragmatism as it generates the real feel of love together. It is society and path in itself. Military is an expediency or bridge between countries to complement and augment mutual and everlasting relationship. More importantly, is the education of the young and future generation on the pragmatism exercise on real situation such as above mentioned. If US would to embark on the compassionate relationship towards muslim people through its citizen on the earth in other countries, on the initial agenda. US and the world are much more lovely, US would never has experienced 911 issue, and the world is less traumatic and doubts. Be empathatic, be lovely. There are many ways to ensure common space instead of exploiting big mass bombing on the expense of its citizens and the world at large. Be committed to a super strong signal of peace and harmony.

BuckyG

I thought this thread was about pragmatism. Where's the discussion about William James, John Dewey and Richard Rorty, THE PRAGMATISTS?!

fivebells

We're pragmatically following the OP's usage.

Jeffrey

Vinlyn,

I am saying you can axe murder someone but you will reap the karma.

Ficus_religiosa

As I see it, Buddhists aren't fit for any job - it's clear when we're talking about selling weapons or drugs. But also being a soldier (at war), hunter etc. would be unfit. This does not mean, that those functions shouldn't be in the world. If it wasn't for the hunting and killing of animals, most of us would not be here - our ancestors wouldn't have survived. But the world is not one giant, sleeping Buddha-cell nor ever will be, and the concepts of Buddhism aren't universal in the sense that they are meant to be lived by everyone. They are undertaken by those who so choose. We don't have to speculate whether we would make good Buddhist generals or executioners in a prison - if we wanted to be that, we would not take the precepts.

Buddhists (not in the sense of cultural-Buddhists of Thailand who know more about local house deities than the precepts) are small sources of light, minding their own business not disturbing others unless in a helpful way.
Thankfully others like to fulfill the roles we won't and cannot condone.

Lazy_eye

I'm talking about the kind of pragmatism that can make a decision based on circumstances and informed by values. Not making decisions based on ideological beliefs. So in your example, we wouldn't automatically exclude murdering or bombing someone because the first precept says so. But we could decide based on the situation using our wisdom and judgement. Is the person we want to bomb about to commit an act of mass murder? Would it be ok then? Would it be ok for someone to hide a jew in nazi Germany and lie to an SS officer about it? What I'm trying to say is there are no absolutes, this is a slippery slope to go down in politics but as a Buddhist is it ok to do? Can we rely on our wisdom and judgement or do we have to apply hard and fast rules?

It seems to me a lot of these examples would fall under the category of "mixed karma". Or, as the suttas put it, kamma that is "dark and bright with a dark and bright result". So, yes, lying to the SS officer would create some bad kamma, but the act of saving a Jewish family from the Nazis would create a whole lot of good kamma.

Refusing to hide the Jewish family could also be "dark" karma, if you were aware that they were in danger of being killed.

I remember reading that when Buddhist influence was especially strong in China (Tang and Sung dynasties, I guess), people used to tally up their "karma points" every day to see if the positives outweighed the negatives! In any case, the greater part of what we do every day -- especially if we're deeply involved in wordly life -- is going to be mixed karma.

My understanding is that intention is considered crucial -- perhaps especially in Mahayana where bodhicitta trumps all other considerations. So for example, if you hid the family out of an expectation of reward or gratitude, this would not nearly be as wholesome as if you did it out of a pure concern for their welfare.

Perhaps military service is another example of something neither 100% "dark" nor "bright"...

Dakini

..

Dakini

Perhaps military service is another example of something neither 100% "dark" nor "bright"...

I'd love to see the US military's rationalization of military service as compatible with the precepts.

person

Anyone have a cave for sale? Time to solve this question I guess.

upekka

So, let's take John Smith that was in front of the WH celebrating. He finishes up about 2 a.m., goes back to his hotel, leaves the next day at 11 a.m. on a flight home to Podunk, Iowa.

Now, here's where the essential question comes in. If you think karma is simply action results in reaction, where's the reaction? He went home and went back to work or back to school.

people can see he went home and went back to work or back to school
but
can people see what is in his mind?

according to Buddha's Teaching 'cetana (volitional activity in the mind/vacci sankhara/ vitakka-viccara) is the kamma' and the result for it (kamma vipaka) would be accordingly

even though people can see John Smith in front of the WH celebrating, he might be sorry for BL or their family (still delusion) or whatever

vinlyn

Upekka said, "or whatever".

That's the issue...at least for me. Is there a karmic reaction, or not, or maybe.

upekka

Upekka said, "or whatever".

That's the issue...at least for me. Is there a karmic reaction, or not, or maybe.

unless one is with the understanding of 'this too is changing' for "or whatever" there is a karmic reaction

even if one has not yet with Noble Right understanding but is trying to bring the mindfulness to 'this too is changing' there is a positive result
that is because one is trying not to be delusional

see that one can do insight meditation (vipassana) even within the unsettled crowd

no need to go to a cave

tess

As Buddhists, to we have an obligation to raise our voice when our government takes actions that go against our principles?

No, we don't. In my view, ideally compassion is the only thing that gives impetus to actions. If our government takes actions, our job is to cut through the need to label those actions as good or bad. Then, we are in a position to be compassionate.

Sometimes, the most compassionate thing to do is say nothing. Or, to hug an official in pain, perhaps just to hold a hand, or to speak out. It is always unique to the forces in the moment, and follows no strict unfolding principle except that it is intended to help people find their way out of delusion.

For instance, it might be pointless to say to a man celebrating "it was wrong to kill Osama" and therefore we don't. His joyfulness at the death of his brother is already tearing his heart, implanting an unfavorable future. It might be better to hold his hand or hug him, so we don't lose two brothers with that one bullet. One to death, one to samsara. Does that make sense?

With warmth,

Matt

Forget the religions which people belong to. Every decent human being should voice disapproval when facing wrong. I totally agree that ‘wrong’ can be subjective. However certain ethical laws are universal.

According to you , we should had hugged Dr Mendele, individuals responsible for atrocities in former Yugoslavia or Rwanda, etc.

NO, we should all shout and condemn.

tess

On the same note. Whole world condemned German society during the II world war for being silent about crimes in the Nazi concentration camps.

Many years later whole world is guilty of the same.

We all sat and sitting not only silently but enjoying our life when horrible things are happening in many parts of our world.

Even more accountable because we have such an easy access to information.


Many Germans used an excuse: ‘’I am sorry I did not know’’

We can’t say the same.

Just sitting and contemplating compassion has not changed the world.

However, many people who fought over centuries for democracy and freedom of expression did. It is not ideal but we have a responsibility to use this freedom to express our opinions.

aMatt

Forget the religions which people belong to. Every decent human being should voice disapproval when facing wrong. I totally agree that ‘wrong’ can be subjective. However certain ethical laws are universal.

You sound passionate on the cusp of anger.

The notion of universal morality is ignorant of individual perspective. Some say killing a cow is immoral, some say killing a fetus is immoral, some say killing is always immoral. Some say killing an ant is moral, but killing a human is immoral. Who decides, you?

According to you , we should had hugged Dr Mendele, individuals responsible for atrocities in former Yugoslavia or Rwanda, etc.

NO, we should all shout and condemn.

It is also ignorant to consider speaking out is always the correct action... and that condemning is ever a skillful action. You are able to cultivate compassion for those who do unskillful actions, and perhaps should.

I'm not saying inaction is always skillful, or hugging... but that when we are free from anger and delusion, we can speak or act or not speak or not act in a skillful way. For instance, Thich Quang Duc's actions were more potent to me than any speech given by an angry hippy.

In my opinion, it useless to fight every misstep made by every government or individual. This breeds an aggressive mind, and would exhaust us. Better to slowly work with every breath skillfully, so that each moment we share helps cultivate an environment of compassion. First in our minds, then our friends, then our community.

vinlyn

aMatt, I respectfully have to say that I don't think Tess is being ignorant, although I do (often) disagree with her. Like many of us sometimes, I think she is being simplistic in how she is looking at things.

compassionate_warrior

In my opinion, it useless to fight every misstep made by every government or individual. This breeds an aggressive mind, and would exhaust us. Better to slowly work with every breath skillfully, so that each moment we share helps cultivate an environment of compassion. First in our minds, then our friends, then our community.

Passivity can be much worse than speaking out, passivity in the face of wrong is one of the definitions of Wrong Speech. I think tess makes some good points. Einstein said "The world has become a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who do nothing to stop it."

aMatt

According to you , we should had hugged Dr Mendele, individuals responsible for atrocities in former Yugoslavia or Rwanda, etc.

Take for example Milosevic, who was the initiator of the Yugoslavic wars/cleansings. He was a fierce nationalist, and was killing off the people who had slaughtered and stolen land in the late 1300s, then ruled with cruelty for 600 years. He hated muslims for what they had done, and was trying to purify his homeland from the descendents of ottoman invaders. He even came to relative power when he told his people to stand up to the aggression.. he was part of a mob that was getting pelted with stones.

His actions in the years that followed were certainly sad and terrible.

But was he that different than us? He stood up and attacked the wrong doing, just as you say we should. In his view, his people's land was stolen and invaded... so he should fight to make it right, fight for the justice of his people, right? Just like you say we should?

Condemn him? Really? I think you can do better.

aMatt

aMatt, I respectfully have to say that I don't think Tess is being ignorant, although I do (often) disagree with her. Like many of us sometimes, I think she is being simplistic in how she is looking at things.

I don't attribute any ignorance to tess, I'm sorry if it sounds that way. I think what you are calling simplistic, I am calling ignorant. If I come across as harsh, it is unintended... I'm being pragmatic.

tess

aMatt

''The notion of universal morality is ignorant of individual perspective. Some say killing a cow is immoral, some say killing a fetus is immoral, some say killing is always immoral. Some say killing an ant is moral, but killing a human is immoral. Who decides, you? ''


Your statement is very cruel but thank you because it is so right.


Yes I am angry…..with myself, society, my ancestors, evolution laws and limitation of the human’s consciousness.

I am not a religious person and as consequence the ‘moral’ rules have not been given to me on the ‘plate’.

At the same time, my moral spine is very important to me.

I know, I keep repeating:'' I and me'' I am ashamed of it very often.


However, those are the devices which I have in my tool box.

Sure, I would love to overcome my emotions and be compassionate to all.
I wish also that 20% of humanity would be. Unrealistic view in 21 century.


Without the religion and only with a subjective history of ethics many of us have to build our own morality.

I don't think that is wrong?!

tess

According to you , we should had hugged Dr Mendele, individuals responsible for atrocities in former Yugoslavia or Rwanda, etc.

Take for example Milosevic, who was the initiator of the Yugoslavic wars/cleansings. He was a fierce nationalist, and was killing off the people who had slaughtered and stolen land in the late 1300s, then ruled with cruelty for 600 years. He hated muslims for what they had done, and was trying to purify his homeland from the descendents of ottoman invaders. He even came to relative power when he told his people to stand up to the aggression.. he was part of a mob that was getting pelted with stones.

His actions in the years that followed were certainly sad and terrible.

But was he that different than us? He stood up and attacked the wrong doing, just as you say we should. In his view, his people's land was stolen and invaded... so he should fight to make it right, fight for the justice of his people, right? Just like you say we should?

Condemn him? Really? I think you can do better.

The human history is full of atrocities committed in the name of patriotism, religion, territorial greed, misunderstanding of other cultures.
Animals fight for their territory /evolution explains why/. However, animal world had not a privilege to develop consciousness i.e. sometimes a morality.

Humans through their history put some artificial lines on the earth. We call them borders.
As a consequence many languages, cultures, religions have come to light.

What is an outcome?

Economical differences, intolerance to other cultures, nationalism etc.

Personally, I don’t care who stole somebody land years ago, the God they prey to.
/IT is nothing I can do about the past/

We are all in it together and hopefully the time when humans will see it, is shortly.


However, not to acknowledge mistakes or excuse them is WRONG.

tess

Vinlyn and aMatt,

I will never get upset or angry for calling me ignorant and simple.
I know I am both plus a pinch of arrogance.


I am here to learn and be challenged about my views.
I know that they are subjective and any food for thought is very welcome.