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.
No self........ But do you believe in MORALLY right and wrong???
zenmyste
Veteran
What are your views on MORALITY
Is there such thing as MORALLY RIGHT and WRONG?
The reason I put 'no self' in the title was because i think some beliefs could sometimes contradict others when not thought of everything as a whole/one!
so before you answer, remember there is no abiding self, and then does that change your answer in some way!
ask yourself the question; "do you believe in morally right and wrong even though there is no self anyway?
For an example; is it morally wrong to SPEED in your car? [my answer; NO] it is not 'morally' wrong , its just something we 'made' up to prevent accidents...
Another example; "is it morally 'wrong' to Murder someone? Now i get confused [my answer would be; yes] because who are you to take someone elses life???
However; although its wrong to murder i still have trouble in thinking its MORALLY WRONG!!!
Who says its 'morally' wrong?
God? Nature? Tao? Buddha?
Or is it just a man made rule?
Therefore its not 'morally' wrong!
what are your thoughts on 'morals' ?
Is there such thing as MORALLY RIGHT and WRONG?
The reason I put 'no self' in the title was because i think some beliefs could sometimes contradict others when not thought of everything as a whole/one!
so before you answer, remember there is no abiding self, and then does that change your answer in some way!
ask yourself the question; "do you believe in morally right and wrong even though there is no self anyway?
For an example; is it morally wrong to SPEED in your car? [my answer; NO] it is not 'morally' wrong , its just something we 'made' up to prevent accidents...
Another example; "is it morally 'wrong' to Murder someone? Now i get confused [my answer would be; yes] because who are you to take someone elses life???
However; although its wrong to murder i still have trouble in thinking its MORALLY WRONG!!!
Who says its 'morally' wrong?
God? Nature? Tao? Buddha?
Or is it just a man made rule?
Therefore its not 'morally' wrong!
what are your thoughts on 'morals' ?
0
Comments
I think the problem is that things get confused when people assume that "moral authority" only comes from God. In my view, human morality is defined by various societies.
It's like asking Even though there's no self anyway, do you believe in the wind?
In Buddhism, for example, the Buddha's distinction between skillful and unskillful actions seems like a middle way between, or possibly a synthesis of, Jeremy Bentham's teleological utilitarianism and Immanuel Kant's deontological categorical imperative. (That's not to say that Bentham and Kant represent two ends of a single ethical spectrum, only that the Buddha takes what Bentham and Kant stress and emphasis them together.) With the Buddha, just/skillful actions aren't simply judged to be just/skillful based upon their consequences, but also because there's something inherently and universally just/skillful about the actions themselves. In Buddhism, this would be due to the quality of the intentions behind the actions.
The underlying principles behind Buddhist ethics are kamma — the idea that certain actions produce pleasant, painful, or neutral feelings/results — and the principle of ahimsa or harmlessness. The basic premise behind kamma is that there's a cause and effect relationship between our actions and how they're experienced. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu puts it, "It's simply the fact of action—you do something unskillful, it's going to come back in an unpleasant way." In the same way, if you do something skillful, it's going to come back and be experienced in a pleasant way. In the Suttas, the Buddha defines kamma as intentional actions of body, speech, and mind (AN 6.63) that have the potential to produce certain results, which, in turn, have the potential to produce pleasant, painful, or neutral feelings (AN 4.235). The word itself simply means 'action.'
Pragmatically speaking, actions are deemed 'unskillful' (akusala) if they lead to to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both. Actions that don't lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both are deemed 'skillful' (kusala) (MN 61). Therefore, the distinction between skillful and unskillful actions is based upon how their results are experienced—not only by ourselves, but by others as well. (This emphasis on the consequential aspect of actions is similar to Jeremy Bentham's teleological utilitarianism, with John Stuart Mill's idea of higher and lower happiness being similar to the Buddha's distinction between long-term and short-term welfare and happiness.)
Psychologically speaking, however, the quality of the intentions behind the actions is what ultimately determines whether they're unskillful or skillful. (This aspect is closer to Kant's deontological categorical imperative when combined with the Buddhist principle of harmlessness.) Intentional actions rooted in greed, hatred, or delusion produce painful mental feelings "like those of the beings in hell," while intentional actions rooted in non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion produce the opposite ("like those of the Beautiful Black Devas"). Then there are acts rooted in both that bring mixed results "like those of human beings, some devas, and some beings in the lower realms" (AN 4.235). By bringing kamma to an end via the noble eightfold path, however, and eliminating the skillful/unskillful dichotomy altogether, the mind is said to become free from agitation, leaving only moral perfection behind (AN 9.7).
Essentially, Buddhist ethics focuses on the moral character of the individual, and revolves around seeing our desires for happiness and freedom from pain in all living creatures as a starting point. If we don't respect that in them, how can we ever expect the same? This is especially true regarding human beings. Here I agree with the Buddha that, besides some rare and special cases, there's no one that's as dear to us as ourselves, that all beings essentially want to be happy in their own way (according to their specific capacities), and that it's a fairly decent and logical reason to desire their happiness as well as our own (SN 3.8): The reason is simple. If our happiness comes at the expense of their happiness, they'll do everything in their power to upset that happiness. Conversely, if they were to infringe upon ours, wouldn't it follow that we'd do everything in our power to upset theirs? It seems like a vicious circle to me, and one of the ways to break this circle is an ethical framework that takes the happiness of others into consideration. This, in turn, can eventually lead to the development of things like compassion and generosity, which, when combined with other qualities and training methods, can ultimately transform a self-centred desire for happiness into the selfless achievement of happiness via insight into the inconstant (anicca), stressful (dukkha), and selfless (anatta) nature of phenomena.
Coming back to your example, I wouldn't consider speeding to be immoral so much as an inadvisable and possibly unskillful thing to do since it entails a stiff monetary penalty and could potentially endanger your life or the life of someone else, i.e., there's nothing inherent unskillful or morally wrong about going y when the speed limit is set at x since my ethical system doesn't take the laws of the state as its basis or highest authority, but I see it as unskillful since the results of the action could cause serious harm (e.g., see the aforementioned MN 61 on the criteria for judging what actions are skillful or unskillful). Murder, on the other hand, I would say is immoral and unskillful because it not only transgresses societal laws but intentionally causes harm as well, with the underlying assumption being that the intention to kill (and here I'm talking specifically about murder) itself is rooted in greed, hatred, or delusion.
And Just for reference, here's an interesting talk I once watched dealing with the biological basis for morality: 'Morality: From the Heavens or From Nature?' Here I agree Dr. Thomas that morality is natural in the sense that it comes from the "evolved architecture" of our minds, which is why I believe that, psychologically speaking, the quality of the intentions behind our actions can determine how the results, whether positive or negative, are experienced.
My morality is simple. If something contribute to cause more suffering, this is wrong. If something contribute to cause less suffering, this is good. Anyway this could be simple but not always is something easy to do. Something the layer between good and wrong could be quite nebulous.
Thanks for the feedback. I think you make a good point, although I also think both terms, i.e., inherent and psychological, fit in that specific context, which concerns the human action of driving faster than a societally-prescribed limit.
So the point is while there is no self in ultimate reality, we live our lives in conventional reality which feels as though there is a self. Morality as determined for the conventional world is therefore based on the assumption that the perceived reality is one where the self does exists. Furthermore, conceptual distinctions such as morality can only have meaning in the realm of conventional reality because ultimate reality is free of concepts of good Vs .evil, right Vs. wrong, etc.
ceasing from evil, doing only good and purifing your heart/
or
does this soften the ego identity or harden it
or
is this partaking of compassion, love & wisdom or greed, hate & delusion......
then a belief in or the self having a position on morality is of little importance.
morally wrong is to prevent another from fully expressing who and what they are.
This can be through ending their life, deliberately doing them harm to disturb their mental state, and suchlike.
I suppose there is a good case to be made for absolute morals, but I personally believe that morality is relative, which is one of the reasons I think secular humanism can really help the world, instead of relying on religious doctrine. There are many examples of relative morality that one could give, like stealing food in order to survive during a natural disaster or killing someone in self defense. Does a person have the right to end their life if they are in pain and suffering from a terminal disease? Killing is wrong, but what if you are drafted into the military and ordered to kill by the government? Does the government have the right to execute (murder) prisoners? What about abortion in order to save the life of the mother?
Hurting someone out of revenge would fall under the morally wrong category. Anyway, morality would be something people (not animals) would agonize over.
Cutting back on thoughts allows one to be innately 'moral'
or rather compassionate/kind and is kinda fun too . . . :wave:
As you referred to the stolen watch, I am assuming this post is supposed to be a counterpoint to my previous post in some way. If yes, can you explain a little bit how you see it as a counterpoint. Thanks.
Anyway, i ended up going to the begining of 'time' , way before anything was here, everything was just 'still'
There was nothing to be 'moral' about!
Morality just didnt exist!
I then started seeing humans develop and noticed how it was man who made 'rules' to follow in order to live a good, moral life..... But at the beginning of time, the universal truth was that there was no morally right or not, even though there is now 'unskillful' and skillfull' actions..
But our actions are only unskillful 'because' of our 'man made law'
Nothing else makes actions skillful or unskillful!
I wonder how we can find out the difference between 'just a thought' or 'truth' .... When buddha sat under the tree he said he saw his past lives etc...
But how do we know thats true, and that he may have just fallen asleep and dreamt of having a past lives... Just because buddha says he saw them, why does that make it true??? Thats makes me think that buddhism is based on 'faith' because i know what 'i' saw when i was meditating... Does that mean ive seen abit of the universal truth?
Anyway who knows!
X
My personal opinion on buddha and his past life stories is that he was just telling stories to convey a message to people who already believed in past lives. If Buddha had been been born and Awakened in Africa his stories would no doubt have been about the native beliefs eg. ancestor worship, spirits etc of the tribe he lived within.
"It is an unvirtuous world that needs virtue. Look at the world. Do you see suffering? Then you will not wish to add to it. In this sense, lucidity is a condition of morality." ~ Leon Wieseltier, Kaddish
Vladimir Lossky says that according to St Maximus the Confessor “this freedom of choice is a sign of imperfection, a limitation of our true freedom. A perfect nature has no need of choice, for it knows naturally what is good. Its freedom is based on this knowledge.
There seems to be this idea that if something is subjective it's not good. Baloney.
I didn't say that.
Subjective ideas can very helpful and useful, in fact I would suggest they are needed by people so I said: "they are agreements of societies and cultures"
but they are not truths.
I would agree with Richard Rorty's idea that we can't find any external truth about ethics, that absolutely certain knowledge of how things are is not possible and that in the end there is nothing deep down inside us except what we have put there ourselves.
As Buddha said: - Samyutta Nikaya I:227
Society in general has agreed upon that which they consider moral, therefore my statement. The Aztecs found it "moral" to rip the hearts out of victims to placate the gods, it was normal indeed it went beyond moral, it was necessary to ensure the survival of that society.
We bomb innocents in our efforts to kill our enemies, some would call that moral. If most find the killing innocents not exactly moral, it's still considered justified and maybe necessary to ensure the survival of our society. IMO good cannot mirror evil.
Again it's not that it's inherently right, it's what we agree is right......for us.
"no morality" In terms of the human condition, is there such a place?
Again, convention, society, culture our place in time determine what we consider moral.
I discard the idea that morality must be based on some ideal or absolute, it clearly is not as history shows us.
So then it is up to us, we determine what society we want by our actions, by what we promote and hold dear-that becomes our morality as a culture.
What do we hold dear, it is evident in the society we have.
You seem to want all humans to embrace some single utopian morality...or it's not a valid concept. The world is too diverse for that to happen. Yet, many moral principles -- not to murder others, not to lie, not to steal -- show up in culture after culture.
But, swing, believe as you wish.
With warmth,
Matt
It is "natural" in the sense that the law of karma can be described as "just the way things are." ie. Buddha did not create the law of karma nor do societies and cultures or some superhuman divine being have any role in controlling how the laws of karma operate. Also even if you say, "I think karma is silly. I don't believe it in it", well, the fact is you are still subject to the law of karma. Why? Because it is a natural law, a natural order of things, just the way things are.
Of course, all of that is according to the Buddha's teachings. You might not believe the Buddha's teachings and you are free to do so.
Now, the law of karma is often referred to as the law of moral causation because it is predicated on the idea that "good" seeds results in "good" fruits, while "evil" seeds result in "evil" fruits.
From the Dhammapada:
So "evil" seeds are equated with actions done with a corrupted heart (ie. corrupted by the defilements) which will lead to "evil fruits" which is equated with suffering. On the other hand, "good" seeds are equated with actions done with a calm, bright heart (ie. a heart uncorrupted by the defilements) which will lead to "good" fruits which is equated with happiness.
According to the Buddha's teachings, the seeds of one's actions does not necessarily bear fruit in the present lifetime.
From the Nibbedhika Sutta:
As karma is a natural law of moral causation, it is irrelevant what the Aztecs believe to be moral or immoral. According to the Dhammapada verses quoted above, under the law of karma, ripping of the heart organ done with a defiled intention would cause those committing such acts to experience suffering as a result (whether in the present lifetime or the next).
This is exactly correct and is entirely consistent with the idea that karma is a natural law. According to Ven. Narada Mahathera:
Emerson put it this way: (from "Compensation")
morality is invented by human beings, it is subjective.
it should not be based on majority views.
is it moral to kill animals for food?
subjective answers. yes, if i am starving.
no, if i have the right to live, why not animals.
is it moral to have the death sentence?
no, according to europeans.
yes, according to americans.
the list is endless.
God never violates our liberty and it is difficult to describe God's justice with our anthropomorphic limitations and anthropic bias, but it is in no way administered the same as if in a court room.
What we perceive, or as it seems to us, to be reward or punishment is actually the result of our movement toward or away from the all-pervasive unchanging constant presence of God where Hell is a state experienced not as the absence of God, for even the demons are dependent upon Him for their existence, but rather the rejection of participation in His self-emptying love which is freely given abundantly to all, and since God is experienced in a personal manner our perception has very much as to do with our relationship with Him.
I didn't suggest this at all. You seem to want to have a utopian vision of morality after all you state :"Yet, many moral principles -- not to murder others, not to lie, not to steal -- show up in culture after culture."
I am saying concepts of morality are not universal and that they are very dependent on the convention, society, culture and it's place in time. To see this in any other way is to not believe history.
"While not perfect, a culturally agreed upon morality is better than no morality at all"-this is an incredibly broad statement, so I brought it up.
One can be in a private hell of their own making and not even realize it.
God is spirit and we can come to know His will as revealed to the heart through the extent of our participation in his uncreated energies or grace, but we can never know his essence.
Sure, not all orange seeds will grow into an orange tree, but they will never grow an apple tree. "Seems" was said to accept that it was only an interpretation of the fragrance that radiates from the testimony of his actions and his legacy.
With warmth,
Matt
"Do destructive actions lead toward freedom and peacefulness?"- Would murdering Stalin (a destructive act) have achieved freedom and peacefulness for possibly millions of people?
There is no ground under your feet or anyone's for that matter to claim with any certitude your actions are better than anyone else's. We can agree that not harming others is a good place to start from but in the end this is just an agreement. There is nothing out there that makes something good or bad. Consider killing, is it ever permissible? Is just okay for the state to kill but not you? Can you kill someone because they have a different colored shirt (uniform) on? Can I or anyone else kill innocents to kill my enemy? Can I kill to save my life? How about murdering a tyrant? In ancient Rome you could throw an infant on a trash heap, this was a legal practice. Children and infants were not adults and as such were not considered human. Animals? Insects? When is it permissible? When is it good? It's all vey subjective. The fact is there is no ground only what you,put there. We can agree to things because they are better not only for ourselves but others as a whole, but that's it.
All the best,
Todd
Yes-except maybe Right View. Dukkha, annata and anicca, I would consider these Truths, these ideas would be very hard to refute.
Do I live by it. Yes I do my best.
Why? Because in the end I believe this way of conducting myself and living my life will offer the greatest possibility of goodness and peace in my life as well as those around me. Personally it's changed my life (I know it sounds like a cliché) and it's the closest I have come to any kind of certitude or truth. But I will keep holding my beliefs and concepts to the fire.
All the best,
Todd
The simple fact there are so many different beliefs and ideas regarding even this topic, should force us to really question what we believe to be so.
All the best,
Todd
With warmth,
Matt
Is speeding in your car morally wrong? Yes it is. You could hurt somebody for the lack of awareness.
Someone creates an arbitrary number and says if you go over it that it is wrong? What may be illegal is not necessarily wrong and what may be legal is not necessarily right.
The posted speed limit is 5 MPH, if you exceed it your speeding. That's MORALLY wrong?