Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Do you believe in right and wrong or just skillful and unskillful?
@jill thanks for calling me out on that. I agree that hypothetical situations are pretty pointless.
Hypothetical situations are not pointless, providing they are reasonable, because they give us an example to develop our thinking skills.
I completely agree with you, vinlyn. Thought-experiments are fairly central to figuring out value-systems regarding epistemology, meaning, morality, and the good life, where empirical experiments are not forthcoming. I.e., we can't actually empirically observe a real scenario of Nazis knocking on the door asking if we're hiding Jews, nor do we need to in order to know whether we'd lie. We don't need to empirically observe a person explaining noises in the attic as the result of gremlins playing ten-pin bowling, arguing that no one has any other explanation, to know that The Only Game In Town style of arguing is a fallacy. These sorts of hypothetical situations are the underpinnings of almost everything we know and value.
Look at Buddhism. The renowned and important story of King Milinda's chariot, which establishes the doctrine of the selflessness of all things, is a thought-experiment of the above sort, a 'mere' hypothetical.
@Dakini There does need to be a judging "I", even in your assaulted child situation. The assaulted child is that very judging "I". The person calling it a "obvious crime" is a judging "I". If there isn't a judgement, there is simply a child that has been assaulted.
There's pain and suffering on the part of the child. The child doesn't know enough to judge, the child is simply experiencing pain. It's the adults around the child who would put the label of "crime" or "harm" or "wrong" on the action that caused the suffering. Or...not, as in the case of monastic (or any institutional) sexual molestation, where the suffering of children has been normalized. But does indifference to the suffering mean that a wrong hasn't been committed?
The concept that killing or sexual misconduct could in some situations be "skillful" can be an invitation to lawlessness. One can discuss such situations in theory, but applying them in contemporary society isn't at all practicable. It may well be time to amend some of these teachings.
you break the precepts at your own peril. these are universal laws, not unlike gravity. if you break them . there are consequences. that's all. as for justifications, there is an endless list made up by our very creative mind.
An unskillful act is never justified. Just as killing is always unskillful.
So just to clarify your position, would you say the five precepts are absolute and there can never be a justification for breaking them?
@jill thanks for calling me out on that. I agree that hypothetical situations are pretty pointless.
Hypothetical situations are not pointless, providing they are reasonable, because they give us an example to develop our thinking skills.
I completely agree with you, vinlyn. Thought-experiments are fairly central to figuring out value-systems regarding epistemology, meaning, morality, and the good life, where empirical experiments are not forthcoming. I.e., we can't actually empirically observe a real scenario of Nazis knocking on the door asking if we're hiding Jews, nor do we need to in order to know whether we'd lie. We don't need to empirically observe a person explaining noises in the attic as the result of gremlins playing ten-pin bowling, arguing that no one has any other explanation, to know that The Only Game In Town style of arguing is a fallacy. These sorts of hypothetical situations are the underpinnings of almost everything we know and value.
Look at Buddhism. The renowned and important story of King Milinda's chariot, which establishes the doctrine of the selflessness of all things, is a thought-experiment of the above sort, a 'mere' hypothetical.
Yes. I was speaking primarily of problem solving sessions we would have when I was principal. Once a year, for example, the police chief and a representative from the school system would come in and test our administrative team with "what-ifs". For example, "What if there was a gas attack on Washington?" We were outside of D.C. just a few miles. And we would be given a series of "what-ifs" on that possibility...not probability...but also not outside the realm of things that could happen. "What if the Jewish synagogue next door were the target of terrorists?" Etc. We weren't asked to hypothesize things such as "What if a meteor strikes the school." And that's my point -- hypothetical situations can be very helpful if they are realistic, but a waste of time when they are impractical.
My position of there being no right and wrong, is not based in indifference. It is not based in needing/wanting a justification to not follow precepts. It is not an absolute anymore than anything else in this reality. I don't say it so I can do what I want. I don't say it so I can absolve past behaviour. Most importantly, It doesn't drive my future behaviour.
I can use right and wrong in conversation. I understand their personal, social, and limited spiritual meaning; however, ultimately right and wrong don't have any meaning in my life. The actions I take at any given moment DO have meaning and they DO have consequence. The actions others take, are theirs alone to make.
I would like to share something I wrote to a friend when we were having a misunderstanding, with the hope that it will shed some light on my position.
"I have been, and am still on a very strange and exciting path of self-discovery (Edit: non-self discovery). I am trying to digest all these new thoughts and feelings, learn from them, and apply them to my life. Sometimes I don't understand something completely and I make decisions with incomplete information. I would most definitely say that this happens daily; although, not necessarily in a strictly philosophical sense. I actually think that this may be a part of compassion and empathy, but I will spare you the philosophical rant. The point is that I will get things wrong: to err is to be human and visa versa. As other humans, we have the capacity to engage positive outcomes (i.e. forgiveness and wisdom) for both parties, and we do so, knowing that we all suffer from imperfection. On the other-hand, we can chose to engage in negative outcomes (i.e. resentment and anger) for, at worst two and at best one of the parties. The math here is simple; it is much better for both parties to engage in positive outcomes, mutually benefiting one another, rather than one or both parties losing. This is why there is so much truth to the statement 'If you take offense where offense is not intended you are a fool; and if you take offense where offense is intended you are also a fool.' So, coming this far I had to ask myself, when presented with such an easy choice, why do humans inevitably seem to chose misery and suffering? The answer to my question I had actually stated earlier: ' Sometimes I don't understand something completely and I make decisions with incomplete information.' I firmly believe that this is why reality exists as I know it. Misery and suffering are a result of not understanding, or more accurately not recognizing the self (Edit: non-self). Ego gets in the way of that recognition, because it gives us a false sense of who, and most importantly why we are here."
@Still_Waters virtue and vice are just another set of labels for right and wrong. They have their place in society and conversation.
I am not attempting to put words in your mouth, and you may not be saying what I'm thinking at all, so I'll just say:
I think sometimes we have to balance our beliefs as Buddhists (which clearly are not totally homogeneous) with the understanding that we live in a society that is not Buddhist.
People generally consider themselves to have been "wronged" when their boundaries have been (intentionally or unintentionally, skillfully or unskillfully) violated.
People generally manifest distancing behaviors in relationship whenever they regard the trust upon which that relationship was based to have been (intentionally or unintentionally, skillfully or unskillfully) broken.
I would not think that anyone deliberately demonstrating distancing behaviors in a relationship would be even remotely impressed by the philosophical argument that there is no such thing as right or wrong...
Definitely, tmottes, making unskillful (or "wrong") decisions is a function of ego, or more basically, ignorance, in a Buddhist sense. Ignorance of the true nature of reality, of our own tendencies toward ego-clinging, etc. The more wisdom one acquires, the more skillful one's decisions and actions will be. But I would submit that the reason they are skillful is that they fit with concepts of right and wrong. If right and wrong are subjective concepts, it's because ego gets in the way.
Sila, precepts, or virtues definitely has an important place in Buddhist practice just as right and wrong does in society. If we can't distinguish one from the other, it is because we don't know how much of them is needed for society and Buddhist practice.
HAHA... i just realized that I have been trying so hard to help people see my perspective (not even convince you to change your views), that I have missed the fact that I am actually asserting some sort of "rightness" of my position by continuing this debate :screwy:. Thank you all for helping me to come to this realization.
I have stated my opinion, I would like to continue to hear yours. Everybody that has contributed to this thread has aided in expanding my understanding of this issue and for that I am appreciative. Keep them coming
HAHA... i just realized that I have been trying so hard to help people see my perspective (not even convince you to change your views), that I have missed the fact that I am actually asserting some sort of "rightness" of my position by continuing this debate :screwy:. Thank you all for helping me to come to this realization.
I have stated my opinion, I would like to continue to hear yours. Everybody that has contributed to this thread has aided in expanding my understanding of this issue and for that I am appreciative. Keep them coming
If you insist On your belief that morality necessitates an 'I' to make the judgment, I think perhaps I could argue that it is in fact subjective morality that requires an 'I', not objective morality. After all, subjective morality entails that morality comes down to the individual's opinion, the 'I's opinion, while objective morality entails that morality is beyond the individual's opinion. Where you would have to say "I believe X is wrong, but that's just my opinion", I would say "X is wrong because of facts Y and Z", without any invocation of 'I'. Just a thought.
Comments
Look at Buddhism. The renowned and important story of King Milinda's chariot, which establishes the doctrine of the selflessness of all things, is a thought-experiment of the above sort, a 'mere' hypothetical.
The concept that killing or sexual misconduct could in some situations be "skillful" can be an invitation to lawlessness. One can discuss such situations in theory, but applying them in contemporary society isn't at all practicable. It may well be time to amend some of these teachings.
these are universal laws, not unlike gravity.
if you break them . there are consequences. that's all.
as for justifications, there is an endless list made up by our
very creative mind.
I can use right and wrong in conversation. I understand their personal, social, and limited spiritual meaning; however, ultimately right and wrong don't have any meaning in my life. The actions I take at any given moment DO have meaning and they DO have consequence. The actions others take, are theirs alone to make.
I would like to share something I wrote to a friend when we were having a misunderstanding, with the hope that it will shed some light on my position.
"I have been, and am still on a very strange and exciting path of self-discovery (Edit: non-self discovery). I am trying to digest all these new thoughts and feelings, learn from them, and apply them to my life. Sometimes I don't understand something completely and I make decisions with incomplete information. I would most definitely say that this happens daily; although, not necessarily in a strictly philosophical sense. I actually think that this may be a part of compassion and empathy, but I will spare you the philosophical rant. The point is that I will get things wrong: to err is to be human and visa versa. As other humans, we have the capacity to engage positive outcomes (i.e. forgiveness and wisdom) for both parties, and we do so, knowing that we all suffer from imperfection. On the other-hand, we can chose to engage in negative outcomes (i.e. resentment and anger) for, at worst two and at best one of the parties. The math here is simple; it is much better for both parties to engage in positive outcomes, mutually benefiting one another, rather than one or both parties losing. This is why there is so much truth to the statement 'If you take offense where offense is not intended you are a fool; and if you take offense where offense is intended you are also a fool.' So, coming this far I had to ask myself, when presented with such an easy choice, why do humans inevitably seem to chose misery and suffering? The answer to my question I had actually stated earlier: ' Sometimes I don't understand something completely and I make decisions with incomplete information.' I firmly believe that this is why reality exists as I know it. Misery and suffering are a result of not understanding, or more accurately not recognizing the self (Edit: non-self). Ego gets in the way of that recognition, because it gives us a false sense of who, and most importantly why we are here."
Alan
I think sometimes we have to balance our beliefs as Buddhists (which clearly are not totally homogeneous) with the understanding that we live in a society that is not Buddhist.
when their boundaries have been
(intentionally or unintentionally, skillfully or unskillfully)
violated.
People generally manifest distancing behaviors in relationship whenever they regard the trust upon which that relationship was based to have been
(intentionally or unintentionally, skillfully or unskillfully)
broken.
I would not think that anyone deliberately demonstrating distancing behaviors in a relationship would be even remotely impressed by the philosophical argument that there is no such thing as right or wrong...
but of course...
I could be wrong.
I have stated my opinion, I would like to continue to hear yours. Everybody that has contributed to this thread has aided in expanding my understanding of this issue and for that I am appreciative. Keep them coming