Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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???

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' ?
«1

Comments

  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Yes, I do believe in "morally" right and wrong.

    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.
    Invincible_summerKundoLucy_Begood
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    yes. Whether 'I' am there or not, Morality still exists.

    It's like asking Even though there's no self anyway, do you believe in the wind?
    Invincible_summerLucy_Begood
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited June 2013
    When it comes to whether an action is deemed to be moral or ethical, I think the answer will ultimately depend a great deal on the underlying assumptions and principles that form the basis of what we consider to be right and wrong, as well as that of any ethical system in question. Some, for example, take the outcome of an action to be the most important deciding factor, while others may take the action itself as the key determining factor. For myself, right and wrong in a moral or ethical context relates to the Buddha's teaching on what's skillful and unskillful.

    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):
    Though in thought we range throughout the world,
    We'll nowhere find a thing more dear than self.
    So, since others hold the self so dear,
    He who loves himself should injure none.
    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.
    karastiInvincible_summerLucy_Begood
  • personperson Don't believe everything you think The liminal space Veteran
    @Jason On the whole I really liked your post. I have to take issue with one little part though. You use the word inherent when I think calling it psychological, like you do in the rest of the post, is a better description.
    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.
    For example, I don't think that a crocodile would feel the psychological benefits of compassionate or ethical action because their brains and biology aren't adapted to such rewards. Meaning the action, while not as externally tied up in the results, depend upon the nature of the being engaging in the action.

  • ArthurbodhiArthurbodhi Mars Veteran
    No self or Non Self?No Self or Non Self?l

    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. :(
    vinlynhowJeffreyJason
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    person said:

    @Jason On the whole I really liked your post. I have to take issue with one little part though. You use the word inherent when I think calling it psychological, like you do in the rest of the post, is a better description.

    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.
    For example, I don't think that a crocodile would feel the psychological benefits of compassionate or ethical action because their brains and biology aren't adapted to such rewards. Meaning the action, while not as externally tied up in the results, depend upon the nature of the being engaging in the action.



    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.
  • howhow Veteran Veteran
    If one's actions accord with

    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.
    JeffreyInvincible_summerlobster
  • To look at this from a Buddhist perspective..

    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.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    There are relatively more and less moral actions. The criterion is how harmful the action is. Speeding is more dangerous than driving the speed limit. If someone is a Buddha they might still ask for the watch back because the thief needs to learn not to steal.
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Even if someone, driven by desperate want,
    Steals, or makes someone else steal, everything you own,
    Dedicate to him your body, your wealth, and
    All the good you’ve ever done or will do — this is the practice of a bodhisattva.
    (But of course, this doesn't preclude the possibility that you might ask for the watch back, out of concern for their development, just thought it was an interesting counterpoint.)
  • I think we all believe in morals or ethics, in right and wrong, even if there is no abiding self. As far as where these morals come from, I don't think it has to be anything more than what we as a society decide is right in order to live together and get along, but you bring up an interesting point. Morality does seem to imply God or some kind of higher authority than man. And if these morals are not man made, than that implies that they are absolute, which I guess is the source of most of the conflict in the world since this will vary among different cultures.

    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?

  • NevermindNevermind Bitter & Hateful Veteran
    federica said:

    yes. Whether 'I' am there or not, Morality still exists.

    It's like asking Even though there's no self anyway, do you believe in the wind?

    Not really, cuz the wind doesn't need people folk to blow. :-/
  • pegembarapegembara Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Actions that lead to the long term welfare for oneself and others would be morally right and its opposite would lead to suffering.

    Hurting someone out of revenge would fall under the morally wrong category. Anyway, morality would be something people (not animals) would agonize over.
  • lobsterlobster Veteran
    zenmyste said:


    what are your thoughts on 'morals' ?

    :confused:

    Cutting back on thoughts allows one to be innately 'moral'
    or rather compassionate/kind and is kinda fun too . . . :wave:
  • fivebells said:

    Even if someone, driven by desperate want,
    Steals, or makes someone else steal, everything you own,
    Dedicate to him your body, your wealth, and
    All the good you’ve ever done or will do — this is the practice of a bodhisattva.
    (But of course, this doesn't preclude the possibility that you might ask for the watch back, out of concern for their development, just thought it was an interesting counterpoint.)

    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.
  • FlorianFlorian Veteran
    edited June 2013
    pegembara said:

    Actions that lead to the long term welfare for oneself and others would be morally right and its opposite would lead to suffering.

    Hurting someone out of revenge would fall under the morally wrong category. Anyway, morality would be something people (not animals) would agonize over.

    Perhaps the first sentence should be 'actions we believe will lead to ...'? We can have no way of knowing in advance which of our actions will lead to beneficial outcomes, but we can do our best to be skillful and well-meaning. If it were all about outcomes then the karmic consequences for the actor would change as the outcomes of the action unfolded over time, and they'd be unfolding forever. But our intentions are present and fixed at the time of the action.

  • Thanks everyone for answers, the reason i asked was because earlier this week, i went into a very deep meditation! I dont know how long i was meditating for (hours)

    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
    Chrysalid
  • I agree with your conclusion zenmyste, morality doesn't exist outside of human social interaction, it's not even a coherent concept as it varies from culture to culture, even person to person. The universe is amoral, people create morality for themselves.

    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.
  • Not Buddhist, but nevertheless applicable I think:

    "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

    Kundo
  • SilouanSilouan Veteran
    Morality is the basis for the ego's struggle in exercising freedom of choice to behave itself and live a life conforming to external rules and norms, and there isn't anything particularly Christian about it, because it has almost nothing to do with inward profound change, but rather more about moral improvement or trying to do better.

    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.
    riverflowJasonkarmablues
  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    There is no ground or base with which to predicate morality. In the end morality is ultimately subjective; they are agreements of societies and cultures.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    There is no ground or base with which to predicate morality. In the end morality is ultimately subjective; they are agreements of societies and cultures.

    I don't see why you say that. Yes, to some extent morality changes from culture to culture. But within a culture there is usually some source of morality, whether it be the Bible or the Five Precepts or _____________.

    There seems to be this idea that if something is subjective it's not good. Baloney.

  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    edited June 2013
    "There seems to be this idea that if something is subjective it's not good"
    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.
  • There is karma which can be seen as a natural law of moral causation operating independently of agreements of societies and cultures.

    As Buddha said:
    According to the seed that is sown,
    so is the fruit you reap therefrom.
    The doer of good will gather good,
    the doer of evil, evil reaps.
    - Samyutta Nikaya I:227
  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    edited June 2013
    What is "moral" or even "natural" about that law? Ascribing meaning to things not inherently found in them. Simple cause and effect, good acts often result in good results. Evil acts often result in bad results. Not always. Maybe better to state a result will occur because of an action. Good, bad or indifferent is subject to interpretation and one could fully engage in horrible acts and benefit as a result. Joseph Stalin was a mass murderer who ruled absolutely until he died naturally from I believe a stroke. There is no invisible hand doling out rewards or punishments.
    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.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    While not perfect, a culturally agreed upon morality is better than no morality at all.
  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    vinlyn said:

    While not perfect, a culturally agreed upon morality is better than no morality at all.

    How about the culturally agreed upon morality of the Nazi's?
    "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.


  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    edited June 2013

    vinlyn said:

    While not perfect, a culturally agreed upon morality is better than no morality at all.

    How about the culturally agreed upon morality of the Nazi's?
    "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.


    I don't see that that's very hard to understand. There are exceptions to every "rule". Which is why I said the concept was not perfect. Anymore than any other philosophy or concept is pure. For example, we have Buddhists in Burma attacking Muslims. Does that mean Buddhism is not a valid concept?

    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.

  • aMattaMatt Veteran
    edited June 2013

    Simple cause and effect, good acts often result in good results. Evil acts often result in bad results. Not always. Maybe better to state a result will occur because of an action. Good, bad or indifferent is subject to interpretation and one could fully engage in horrible acts and benefit as a result. Joseph Stalin was a mass murderer who ruled absolutely until he died naturally from I believe a stroke. There is no invisible hand doling out rewards or punishments.

    There is an assumption in your idea that Stalin wasn't pained by his actions. His life seems to me to be a prision of isolation and paranoia. There doesn't have to be an invisible hand for unskillful actions to produce unfavorable mental states. Stalin might have the appearance of skirting natural law because he didn't "pay" for his crimes, but orange seeds will not grow an apple tree.

    With warmth,
    Matt
    pegembarariverflow
  • karmablueskarmablues Veteran
    edited June 2013

    What is "moral" or even "natural" about that law?


    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:
    Phenomena are preceded by the heart,
    ruled by the heart,
    made of the heart.
    If you speak or act with a corrupted heart,
    suffering follows you,
    as the wheel of the cart,
    the track of the ox that pulls it.

    Phenomena are preceded by the heart,
    ruled by the heart,
    made of the heart.
    If you speak or act with a calm, bright heart,
    then happiness follows you,
    like a shadow that never leaves.

    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.

    one could fully engage in horrible acts and benefit as a result. Joseph Stalin was a mass murderer who ruled absolutely until he died naturally from I believe a stroke.


    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:
    And what is the result of kamma? The result of kamma is of three sorts, I tell you: that which arises right here & now, that which arises later [in this lifetime], and that which arises following that. This is called the result of kamma.

    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.


    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).

    There is no invisible hand doling out rewards or punishments.


    This is exactly correct and is entirely consistent with the idea that karma is a natural law. According to Ven. Narada Mahathera:
    [Kamma] is a law in itself, but it does not thereby follow that there should be a law-giver. Ordinary laws of nature, like gravitation, need no law-giver. It operates in its own field without the intervention of an external independent ruling agency.

    Nobody, for instance, has decreed that fire should burn.... No scientist has ordered that water should consist of H2O... These are their intrinsic characteristics. Kamma is neither fate nor predestination imposed upon us by some mysterious unknown power to which we must helplessly submit ourselves. It is one's own doing reacting on oneself, and so one has the possibility to divert the course of Kamma to some extent. How far one diverts it depends on oneself.

    It must also be said that such phraseology as rewards and punishments should not be allowed to enter into discussions concerning the problem of Kamma. For Buddhism does not recognize an Almighty Being who rules His subjects and rewards and punishes them accordingly. Buddhists, on the contrary, believe that sorrow and happiness one experiences are the natural outcome of one's own good and bad actions.
    Lucy_BegoodpegembaraJeffrey
  • aMatt said:

    There is an assumption in your idea that Stalin wasn't pained by his actions. His life seems to me to be a prision of isolation and paranoia.

    This is so important to remember! Like Sonia to Raskolnikov who cries out to him, "What have you done to yourself?" Stalin didn't "get away with" anything, but created more misery for himself, his own private hell. We all do this to ourselves to some extent-- Stalin merely represents an extreme case.

    Emerson put it this way:

    Pleasure is taken out of pleasant things, profit out of profitable things, power out of strong things, the moment we seek to separate them from the whole. We can no more halve things and get the sensual good, by itself, than we can get an inside that shall have no outside, or a light without a shadow. “Drive out nature with a fork, she comes running back.”

    Life invests itself with inevitable conditions, which the unwise seek to dodge, which one and another brags that he does not know, brags that they do not touch him;—but the brag is on his lips, the conditions are in his soul. If he escapes them in one part they attack him in another more vital part. If he has escaped them in form and in the appearance, it is because he has resisted his life and fled from himself, and the retribution is so much death. So signal is the failure of all attempts to make this separation of the good from the tax, that the experiment would not be tried,—since to try it is to be mad,—but for the circumstance that when the disease began in the will, of rebellion and separation, the intellect is at once infected, so that the man ceases to see God whole in each object, but is able to see the sensual allurement of an object and not see the sensual hurt; he sees the mermaid’s head but not the dragon’s tail, and thinks he can cut off that which he would have from that which he would not have.
    (from "Compensation")
    Lucy_BegoodSilouan
  • jlljll Veteran
    if you dont believe in karma, then no, there is no moral or not.
    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.
    zenmyste said:

    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' ?

    Theswingisyellow
  • SilouanSilouan Veteran
    If the heart is conditioned a certain way then whatever it experiences will likewise be perceived accordingly. There are some who experience what many would consider to be crushing and beyond measure in an entirely different light.
    rivercane
  • SilouanSilouan Veteran
    With regards to reward and punishment previously mentioned.

    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.
    riverflowJeffrey
  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    vinlyn said:

    vinlyn said:

    While not perfect, a culturally agreed upon morality is better than no morality at all.

    How about the culturally agreed upon morality of the Nazi's?
    "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.


    I don't see that that's very hard to understand. There are exceptions to every "rule". Which is why I said the concept was not perfect. Anymore than any other philosophy or concept is pure. For example, we have Buddhists in Burma attacking Muslims. Does that mean Buddhism is not a valid concept?

    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.

    @Vinlyn-"You seem to want all humans to embrace some single utopian morality...or it's not a valid concept"
    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.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Okay, so I stand on what I said, and you stand on what you said. Glad we settled that! :D
  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    edited June 2013
    aMatt said:

    Simple cause and effect, good acts often result in good results. Evil acts often result in bad results. Not always. Maybe better to state a result will occur because of an action. Good, bad or indifferent is subject to interpretation and one could fully engage in horrible acts and benefit as a result. Joseph Stalin was a mass murderer who ruled absolutely until he died naturally from I believe a stroke. There is no invisible hand doling out rewards or punishments.

    There is an assumption in your idea that Stalin wasn't pained by his actions. His life seems to me to be a prision of isolation and paranoia. There doesn't have to be an invisible hand for unskillful actions to produce unfavorable mental states. Stalin might have the appearance of skirting natural law because he didn't "pay" for his crimes, but orange seeds will not grow an apple tree.

    With warmth,
    Matt
    There is an assumption on your part that he was pained by his actions:"His life seems to me to be a prision of isolation and paranoia" You can't know that and I can't know that he wasn't pained by what he did. I will still stand by my assertion that some result will occur because of an action, the result is subjective and one's act does not necessarily equate to the outcome.
  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    @Silouan: "with our anthropomorphic limitations and anthropic bias" we can't know god's justice but we know what god thinks or even who god is?
  • There is an assumption on your part that he was pained by his actions:"His life seems to me to be a prision of isolation and paranoia" You can't know that and I can't know that he wasn't pained by what he did.

    But Stalin certainly acted quite paranoid (except, ironically, in relation to Hitler). This was clearly indicated by his own recorded actions. It isn't uncommon among tyrants-- who, after all, gained their own position through deception themselves-- its a precarious position to put yourself in. Living a life of paranoia is not exactly what I'd call the "good life."

    One can be in a private hell of their own making and not even realize it.
  • SilouanSilouan Veteran
    @Theswingisyellow

    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.
  • aMattaMatt Veteran


    There is an assumption on your part that he was pained by his actions:"His life seems to me to be a prision of isolation and paranoia" You can't know that and I can't know that he wasn't pained by what he did. I will still stand by my assertion that some result will occur because of an action, the result is subjective and one's act does not necessarily equate to the outcome.

    Sometimes we argue when we feel the need to defend our solid views. Do you think favorable mental states arise from unskillful actions and speech? Do destructive actions lead toward freedom and peacefulness? Is the 8FP only subjectively true to tSiY? Not true at all?

    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
    riverflow
  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    "Do you think favorable mental states arise from unskillful actions and speech?"-Do I personally, no. But my view is without certitude.
    "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
    Jeffrey
  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    edited June 2013
    "Is the 8FP only subjectively true"
    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
    Jeffrey
  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    Last point:
    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
  • FlorianFlorian Veteran
    I feel there are only three different views. First there is karma, for which intention is everything and there is no list of rules; second, there is the 'Leviathon' view, by which the rules are imposed on us according to some cosmic rule-book of which we have no knowledge; and thirdly there is the view that it is all a matter of culture and it makes no difference how we behave. I would include @Silouan's view under karma, since it seems to be the same thing in theistic language, or, slightly differently interpreted, as falling under the 'Leviathon' view. Is there a fourth view?


    Jeffrey
  • aMattaMatt Veteran

    "Is the 8FP only subjectively true"
    Yes-except maybe Right View. Dukkha, annata and anicca, I would coconsider...

    This reminds me of Maimonides' consideration of the Adam/eve/apple mythos. Prior to the apple, he said, there was truth and false. The apple brought good and bad, which are political/social interpretations. Said differently, there is truth to the patterns of nature... it is only our views/interpretations which support the appearance of subjectivity.

    With warmth,
    Matt
    riverflowTheswingisyellowpegembara
  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    Morality is simply because there is no separate self.

    Is speeding in your car morally wrong? Yes it is. You could hurt somebody for the lack of awareness.
    riverflow
  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    I think we want so much for this life and what we do to have meaning that we assign meaning to things that inherently lack meaning. I think we should strive to view objects (us and everything) as not-self and judge actions in the light of their consequences. I think even though we can't point to anything that is absolute or grants us authority or gives us ground to predicate our opinions on we can still agree on what is wholesome and good for life and ourselves based upon the results. The totality of life is not only goodness but entails suffering. So along with Gandhi we get Stalin. The question then remains, what do we want to foster? What we decide and the results we incur are up to us.
  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Is speeding in your car morally wrong-No it's not.
    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?
Sign In or Register to comment.