Moral Relativism

[Mike]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
A simple real-world example. This was on my mind today.

• Moral relativism:

Steven Bartlett, the host of the YT channel Diary of a CEO, explained (or confessed?) to his interviewee, AI safety advocate Stuart Russell, in this video, the following:

1. He feels driven to interview more and more AI specialists who are seriously concerned about AI safety, and even possibly resulting human extinction, because he deeply cares about that himself.
2. At the same time, he invests heavily in every one of the leading US AI companies. (Why? Because of all the $$$$ he's profited.)

(My own comment: moral relativism is often all about money, personal gain, or national gain. Bartlett's double standard illustrates this perfectly.)

• Moral absolutism:
  (which is often all about moral courage)

The dozens of AI researchers who resigned from Sam Altman's OpenAI to blow the whistle on safety, some of them forgoing $100 million per year salaries and refusing to be paid off to be silent.

Great example Bill.

I stopped and meditated on this as I read it: moral absolutism,which is often all about moral courage.

Perhaps that is an indicator, when we are in what feels like moral grey areas, that we are indeed trending towards an absolute moral ideal - when it takes courage to make a moral decision.

[Mike]

I think we know something is objectively true when we act it out in the real world and it works(or at least it works better than the alternatives). This is the greatest indicator of truth and evidence of moral absolutism, imo (and the futility of moral relativism).

When you make moral relativity your north star, you wind up with distorted and debauched societies.

Not only that, they're totally chaotic and incoherent societies because when everyone insists on their "own truth", there can be no agreement on right or wrong. That's why radical leftism is so corrosive; it tells us men can get pregnant; it tells us men and women are equal in all ways; it tells us that equity should be prioritized over all else, even though we've run that experiment many times in the 21rst century and it all it does it cause grief and death.

This is the postmodernism that has infected the universities and the world at large. And we can see the results of it. It does not work; it does not allow for maximal human flourishing or even a functional society.

The traditional west, however - that emphasizes Judeo Christian values - works (or at least it works better than the alternatives). And it works largely because it believes in a God that left us specific moral instructions. And when you follow those instructions to the best of your ability, life tends to be much better.

So the evidence for moral absolutism vs moral relativism is found in the real world. It's revealed in what works and what doesn't work.

[onawah]

Apologies--I didn't mean to post this about "The Yugas" here, and have started a new thread instead entitled "Are we in the Kali Yuga?

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Mike (here)
I think morality is largely absolute because there is nothing more real than your own pain. When you are treated immorally by someone else, you feel it in the depths of your soul. You cannot intellectualize or philosophize your way out of it.

That's exactly right. No one wants to be murdered, raped, or robbed. That's how you know it's wrong. As gini said, paraphrasing Luke 6:31, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". In its simplest equation: you don't want to be harmed, because that would be wrong, so do no harm yourself.

Posted by Mike (here)
As I sit and think about it right now, I think good and evil at the extremes are absolute; however, there is some grey area in the middle. Without straining our imaginations we can all think of examples where murder would be the morally correct action to take. Even the Bible doesn't offer up all the endless permutations of each and every situation that may present itself, so even Bible believers are forced to consult their inner voice (spiritual DNA, holy spirit) in these grey area matters. It's unavoidable.

I agree here, too. Subjectivity does sometimes come into play. Everything is 'situational', and circumstances must be taken into account. But I don't think 'murder' is ever right, not when that exact word is used. Murder to me sounds like a willful act. 'Taking another life' perhaps, when you're backed into a corner and you have no choice -- it's their life or your life; the Law would call it 'self defence'. If there was no other way to preserve your life than taking the life that is threatening it, then surely your conscience remains intact -- the conscience being the watchdog sitting between your consciousness and the Holy Spirit, as you called it. The psyche, however, would probably take some damage, and you'd have to live with that trauma for the rest of your life. But if there was no other way, I suspect your conscience would be clear.

[Mike Gorman]

This question is actually one of the really big ones, Philosophy undergraduates are presented with precisely this question: I know this from personal experience, albeit from several decades back, is there an absolute moral authority from which we human beings gain our innate sense of right/wrong? I will not proclaim myself as being an ultimate judge on this question, but I have always felt there is a universal basis to morality, the true psychopath will not feel this of course, & this is a clue for us, if a psychopathic individual will not feel guilt or a sense of shame for murdering a toddler or infant (to use a horrible example) or for inflicting pain e.t.c then this provides strong evidence that moral relativism is more akin with psychopathic modes of thinking: I believe most human beings are more inclined to want to protect an infant from harm on a very primitive/basic level without giving this much thinking.
From where did we derive our 'innate' apriori sense of right/wrong? The biologist might point to our wishing to preserve the species, to ensure our continuance, and hence we value actions & individuals who promote these 'moral ways' - of course religious texts have instructed us, but I think our Morality preceded even the oldest of these. I am moral absolutist in this sense, I believe in the value of mutual protection/fair play, I am honest enough to recognize this as a personal value, but I do think there is a universal basis to this.

[rgray222]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)

Posted by Mike (here)
I think morality is largely absolute because there is nothing more real than your own pain. When you are treated immorally by someone else, you feel it in the depths of your soul. You cannot intellectualize or philosophize your way out of it.

That's exactly right. No one wants to be murdered, raped, or robbed. That's how you know it's wrong. As gini said, paraphrasing Luke 6:31, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". In its simplest equation: you don't want to be harmed, because that would be wrong, so do no harm yourself.

Posted by Mike (here)
As I sit and think about it right now, I think good and evil at the extremes are absolute; however, there is some grey area in the middle. Without straining our imaginations we can all think of examples where murder would be the morally correct action to take. Even the Bible doesn't offer up all the endless permutations of each and every situation that may present itself, so even Bible believers are forced to consult their inner voice (spiritual DNA, holy spirit) in these grey area matters. It's unavoidable.

I agree here, too. Subjectivity does sometimes come into play. Everything is 'situational', and circumstances must be taken into account. But I don't think 'murder' is ever right, not when that exact word is used. Murder to me sounds like a willful act. 'Taking another life' perhaps, when you're backed into a corner and you have no choice -- it's their life or your life; the Law would call it 'self defence'. If there was no other way to preserve your life than taking the life that is threatening it, then surely your conscience remains intact -- the conscience being the watchdog sitting between your consciousness and the Holy Spirit, as you called it. The psyche, however, would probably take some damage, and you'd have to live with that trauma for the rest of your life. But if there was no other way, I suspect your conscience would be clear.

Posted by Mike Gorman (here)
This question is actually one of the really big ones, Philosophy undergraduates are presented with precisely this question: I know this from personal experience, albeit from several decades back, is there an absolute moral authority from which we human beings gain our innate sense of right/wrong? I will not proclaim myself as being an ultimate judge on this question, but I have always felt there is a universal basis to morality, the true psychopath will not feel this of course, & this is a clue for us, if a psychopathic individual will not feel guilt or a sense of shame for murdering a toddler or infant (to use a horrible example) or for inflicting pain e.t.c then this provides strong evidence that moral relativism is more akin with psychopathic modes of thinking: I believe most human beings are more inclined to want to protect an infant from harm on a very primitive/basic level without giving this much thinking.
From where did we derive our 'innate' apriori sense of right/wrong? The biologist might point to our wishing to preserve the species, to ensure our continuance, and hence we value actions & individuals who promote these 'moral ways' - of course religious texts have instructed us, but I think our Morality preceded even the oldest of these. I am moral absolutist in this sense, I believe in the value of mutual protection/fair play, I am honest enough to recognize this as a personal value, but I do think there is a universal basis to this.

First, let me say that I enjoy these discussions; they are thought-provoking, and I believe that exploring the human condition benefits us all. Please don't take any offense from my words. They are written for the sake of discussion and to help bring some clarity to my thinking.

Mike (Gorman), who knew that my moral flexibility was a sign of a psychopathic individual (lol)

That said, perhaps I am missing something, but I find that when we adopt an absolute moral stance, it leaves little room for change or evolution over time. If one makes exceptions to moral absolutism, then it seems they are no longer a strict moral absolutist. Here are a few examples of how I believe morality has (and should) change over time:

Slavery: Historically, slavery was widely practiced and considered morally acceptable, not just during the European slave trade of the 17th and 18th centuries, but also in ancient Egypt, Greece, and the Islamic world. History tells us that some African countries engaged in slavery and slave trading and believed it to be morally acceptable.

War: Many cultures viewed war as a morally justified means of territorial expansion. Fighting for one’s nation was regarded as a moral necessity. Even today, we accept war as legal, yet it essentially amounts to large-scale murder. I have no idea how a moral absolutist would square that.

Treatment of Animals: Around 1850, during the westward expansion of the United States, it was common to shoot buffalo from train windows. Not only was this considered a sport, but many also enjoyed gambling on the outcomes; at the time, this was morally acceptable. Today, it would be morally reprehensible and make worldwide headlines.

Debtors' Prison: This is brought up somewhat tongue in cheek, but not completely. The only people who believe that you should be locked up for owing money are the tax authorities. The rest of us believe it is morally wrong.

Gay Marriage: Not too long ago, gay marriage was considered morally reprehensible by mainstream society. Today, it is widely accepted socially, especially in the West. I suspect that, within the next 20 years, it will be regarded as morally acceptable by most around the world, with only a few extremist Islamic countries holding out.

What was once considered morally right or wrong can change over time, raising questions about the inflexibility of moral absolutism.

[Mike]

Posted by rgray222 (here)

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)

Posted by Mike (here)
I think morality is largely absolute because there is nothing more real than your own pain. When you are treated immorally by someone else, you feel it in the depths of your soul. You cannot intellectualize or philosophize your way out of it.

That's exactly right. No one wants to be murdered, raped, or robbed. That's how you know it's wrong. As gini said, paraphrasing Luke 6:31, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". In its simplest equation: you don't want to be harmed, because that would be wrong, so do no harm yourself.

Posted by Mike (here)
As I sit and think about it right now, I think good and evil at the extremes are absolute; however, there is some grey area in the middle. Without straining our imaginations we can all think of examples where murder would be the morally correct action to take. Even the Bible doesn't offer up all the endless permutations of each and every situation that may present itself, so even Bible believers are forced to consult their inner voice (spiritual DNA, holy spirit) in these grey area matters. It's unavoidable.

I agree here, too. Subjectivity does sometimes come into play. Everything is 'situational', and circumstances must be taken into account. But I don't think 'murder' is ever right, not when that exact word is used. Murder to me sounds like a willful act. 'Taking another life' perhaps, when you're backed into a corner and you have no choice -- it's their life or your life; the Law would call it 'self defence'. If there was no other way to preserve your life than taking the life that is threatening it, then surely your conscience remains intact -- the conscience being the watchdog sitting between your consciousness and the Holy Spirit, as you called it. The psyche, however, would probably take some damage, and you'd have to live with that trauma for the rest of your life. But if there was no other way, I suspect your conscience would be clear.

Posted by Mike Gorman (here)
This question is actually one of the really big ones, Philosophy undergraduates are presented with precisely this question: I know this from personal experience, albeit from several decades back, is there an absolute moral authority from which we human beings gain our innate sense of right/wrong? I will not proclaim myself as being an ultimate judge on this question, but I have always felt there is a universal basis to morality, the true psychopath will not feel this of course, & this is a clue for us, if a psychopathic individual will not feel guilt or a sense of shame for murdering a toddler or infant (to use a horrible example) or for inflicting pain e.t.c then this provides strong evidence that moral relativism is more akin with psychopathic modes of thinking: I believe most human beings are more inclined to want to protect an infant from harm on a very primitive/basic level without giving this much thinking.
From where did we derive our 'innate' apriori sense of right/wrong? The biologist might point to our wishing to preserve the species, to ensure our continuance, and hence we value actions & individuals who promote these 'moral ways' - of course religious texts have instructed us, but I think our Morality preceded even the oldest of these. I am moral absolutist in this sense, I believe in the value of mutual protection/fair play, I am honest enough to recognize this as a personal value, but I do think there is a universal basis to this.

First, let me say that I enjoy these discussions; they are thought-provoking, and I believe that exploring the human condition benefits us all. Please don't take any offense from my words. They are written for the sake of discussion and to help bring some clarity to my thinking.

Mike (Gorman), who knew that my moral flexibility was a sign of a psychopathic individual (lol)

That said, perhaps I am missing something, but I find that when we adopt an absolute moral stance, it leaves little room for change or evolution over time. If one makes exceptions to moral absolutism, then it seems they are no longer a strict moral absolutist. Here are a few examples of how I believe morality has (and should) change over time:

Slavery: Historically, slavery was widely practiced and considered morally acceptable, not just during the European slave trade of the 17th and 18th centuries, but also in ancient Egypt, Greece, and the Islamic world. History tells us that some African countries engaged in slavery and slave trading and believed it to be morally acceptable.

War: Many cultures viewed war as a morally justified means of territorial expansion. Fighting for one’s nation was regarded as a moral necessity. Even today, we accept war as legal, yet it essentially amounts to large-scale murder. I have no idea how a moral absolutist would square that.

Treatment of Animals: Around 1850, during the westward expansion of the United States, it was common to shoot buffalo from train windows. Not only was this considered a sport, but many also enjoyed gambling on the outcomes; at the time, this was morally acceptable. Today, it would be morally reprehensible and make worldwide headlines.

Debtors' Prison: This is brought up somewhat tongue in cheek, but not completely. The only people who believe that you should be locked up for owing money are the tax authorities. The rest of us believe it is morally wrong.

Gay Marriage: Not too long ago, gay marriage was considered morally reprehensible by mainstream society. Today, it is widely accepted socially, especially in the West. I suspect that, within the next 20 years, it will be regarded as morally acceptable by most around the world, with only a few extremist Islamic countries holding out.

What was once considered morally right or wrong can change over time, raising questions about the inflexibility of moral absolutism.

I think to respond to that I might say that certain acts have always been absolutely morally wrong and we just didn't know it (or remained willfully ignorant of their wrongness). God's morality never changes, I'd say, but over time we gain a greater understanding of His absolute morality and act accordingly. It's something like that maybe.

I didn't start this thread to be a Bible thumper, but the Bible offers moral instruction on all those topics. I can't think of any more straightforward way to gain an understanding on them (although it must be said that the Bible is often murky and hard to understand, and it also seems to condone certain abominations like slavery). Setting all the theology aside, I think it provides the best moral instruction for a humanity interested in maximum human flourishing and happiness. Even Richard Dawkins calls himself a "cultural Christian".

But to your point, there does appear to be grey areas. Under certain conditions, lying and killing can be the morally appropriate acts imo. If you're a psychopath then I am too

[Mike]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)

Posted by Mike (here)
I think morality is largely absolute because there is nothing more real than your own pain. When you are treated immorally by someone else, you feel it in the depths of your soul. You cannot intellectualize or philosophize your way out of it.

That's exactly right. No one wants to be murdered, raped, or robbed. That's how you know it's wrong. As gini said, paraphrasing Luke 6:31, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". In its simplest equation: you don't want to be harmed, because that would be wrong, so do no harm yourself.

Posted by Mike (here)
As I sit and think about it right now, I think good and evil at the extremes are absolute; however, there is some grey area in the middle. Without straining our imaginations we can all think of examples where murder would be the morally correct action to take. Even the Bible doesn't offer up all the endless permutations of each and every situation that may present itself, so even Bible believers are forced to consult their inner voice (spiritual DNA, holy spirit) in these grey area matters. It's unavoidable.

I agree here, too. Subjectivity does sometimes come into play. Everything is 'situational', and circumstances must be taken into account. But I don't think 'murder' is ever right, not when that exact word is used. Murder to me sounds like a willful act. 'Taking another life' perhaps, when you're backed into a corner and you have no choice -- it's their life or your life; the Law would call it 'self defence'. If there was no other way to preserve your life than taking the life that is threatening it, then surely your conscience remains intact -- the conscience being the watchdog sitting between your consciousness and the Holy Spirit, as you called it. The psyche, however, would probably take some damage, and you'd have to live with that trauma for the rest of your life. But if there was no other way, I suspect your conscience would be clear.

You've got my gears going a little. That's why I like reading your posts so much.

I've already changed my use of the word "murder" to "killing". I'm not sure if that is sufficient, but I do actually feel more comfortable using that word. It seems to suggest the possibility of self defense and not just flat out malice.

[Mike]

Posted by Mike Gorman (here)
This question is actually one of the really big ones, Philosophy undergraduates are presented with precisely this question: I know this from personal experience, albeit from several decades back, is there an absolute moral authority from which we human beings gain our innate sense of right/wrong? I will not proclaim myself as being an ultimate judge on this question, but I have always felt there is a universal basis to morality, the true psychopath will not feel this of course, & this is a clue for us, if a psychopathic individual will not feel guilt or a sense of shame for murdering a toddler or infant (to use a horrible example) or for inflicting pain e.t.c then this provides strong evidence that moral relativism is more akin with psychopathic modes of thinking: I believe most human beings are more inclined to want to protect an infant from harm on a very primitive/basic level without giving this much thinking.
From where did we derive our 'innate' apriori sense of right/wrong? The biologist might point to our wishing to preserve the species, to ensure our continuance, and hence we value actions & individuals who promote these 'moral ways' - of course religious texts have instructed us, but I think our Morality preceded even the oldest of these. I am moral absolutist in this sense, I believe in the value of mutual protection/fair play, I am honest enough to recognize this as a personal value, but I do think there is a universal basis to this.

I agree on the mutual protection/fair play thing Mike. I also think it's universal, because when it's acted out in the real world it allows for more human flourishing and happiness for all than it's opposite (deception, cruelty). So naturally it appears to be the right thing to do, the morally correct thing. And that suggests moral absolutism to me.

[DNA]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Mike (here)
So where do you stand? Are you a moral relativist or a moral absolutist?

I hold that morality is absolute. (But I also believe that most humans, even those whom society and history consider to be the most moral and wise, don't have the entire biggest picture of morality quite right yet.)

I like what Bill says.
I'll add that mankind needs a moral code. A doctrine with consequences.
Christianity when separated from the Catholic Church has in my opinion proved wonderful in that role.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by rgray222 (here)
Slavery:
Historically, slavery was widely practiced and considered morally acceptable, not just during the European slave trade of the 17th and 18th centuries, but also in ancient Egypt, Greece, and the Islamic world. History tells us that some African countries engaged in slavery and slave trading and believed it to be morally acceptable.

It was never in line with 'true' morality. Those who said it was morally acceptable were themselves moral relativists. They only said "this is all right" to justify their immoral actions. Because they profited from slavery. It made them a crap-ton of money. Many people at the time, mostly Christian people, abhorred the slave trade and spoke out strongly against it. They were moral people. Those money-counters who said it was "morally acceptable" were side-stepping their moral responsibility. Psychopaths do the same when they justify their evil actions: "if it makes me feel good, then there's nothing wrong with it". Moral relativism in a nutshell.

Posted by rgray222 (here)
War:
Many cultures viewed war as a morally justified means of territorial expansion. Fighting for one’s nation was regarded as a moral necessity.

No one attuned to their God-source would ever believe that. They might convince themselves it was morally right, but they'd be the victim of gaslighting every time. How many young lads tromping through the muddy trenches of WWI were gaslighted into being there? "YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU!" the posters told them. How many bought into the hype of war, the glory, the honour, the spoils? How many who ended up losing their lives, or had a limb blown off, thought it was worth the effort? Or that it was for a just cause?

They were sold a lie, that waging war was a necessity. "With war we can secure a lasting peace" said the politicians. Bollocks. In truth, waging war is nothing more or less than a tool [invented by moral relativists] to gain domination over others. The moral absolutist knows this.

Posted by rgray222 (here)
Even today, we accept war as legal, yet it essentially amounts to large-scale murder. I have no idea how a moral absolutist would square that.

Who says war is legal? Who wrote that into law? Men. That's who. Stupid, flawed, Godless Men. A minority of greedy Men. Morally relativistic Men. By and large, WE THE PEOPLE do not accept war as legal. Most of us [God-connected] know in our hearts that Man's petty laws mean NOTHING next to God's. His law overrides all, and it says that killing is wrong. The bureaucrats and war-mongers do not know this. They are disconnected from that. They are the moral relativist. The conscientious objector – he knows, and he'd rather go to prison than take another life.

Posted by rgray222 (here)
Treatment of Animals: Around 1850, during the westward expansion of the United States, it was common to shoot buffalo from train windows. Not only was this considered a sport, but many also enjoyed gambling on the outcomes; at the time, this was morally acceptable. Today, it would be morally reprehensible and make worldwide headlines.

I appreciate the point you're trying to make, that standards of morality are constantly in flux, and largely that is true. Evolution is not a straight line. But Morality IS a straight line. Mankind is apt to stray from that line. He strays from it all the time. To compensate for his error, he tries to 'reinvent' his definition of morality. But morality cannot be reinvented.

We may indeed look back in time and say, "That thing we used to do was considered moral at the time, but it isn't moral today". That has to mean it was never moral in the first place. Morality doesn't change. Our connection to it is what changes. We were off the path in 1850 when we thought it was acceptable to shoot grazing animals from a train window. We know better today, we're more aligned with the path.

Just because we occasionally stagger blindly away from that path isn't Morality's fault. And making up "excuses" to compensate for our error also isn't Morality’s fault. Morality is an absolute constant because God is an absolute constant. It's quite possible we haven't discovered or quite come to terms with every aspect of true 'universal' morality – we're still a young species. But in the final analysis, Morality is not relative. Man's interpretation of it is. Error creates distortion. That distortion is determined by, and is commensurate with, one's connection to or disconnection from God.

[rgray222]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
Just because we occasionally stagger blindly away from that path isn't Morality's fault. And making up moral "excuses" to compensate for our error also isn't Morality’s fault. Morality is an absolute constant because God is an absolute constant. It's quite possible we haven't discovered or quite come to terms with every aspect of true 'universal' morality – we're still a young species. But in the final analysis, Morality is not relative. Man's interpretation of it is. Error creates distortion. That distortion is determined by, and is commensurate with, one's connection to or disconnection from God.

I believe you have condensed the issue down to a few wonderful sentences. God's morality, also called divine or spiritual morality, is absolute. It’s straight, unwavering, and perfect. It has always been this way and always will be. Human morality, on the other hand, changes over time. That might be why we have human experiences. If we can align our morality with the Creator’s, if there’s no difference between them, then our human part of this eternal journey may very well be complete.

[Raskolnikov]

Excellent analysis everyone, really enjoyed it and super thought provoking. Now that you’ve pretty much got it sussed, I thought we might add one more example to the list - suicide. The Stoics viewed suicide as an act of courage, especially when one had been taken by an opposing army and would be forced to be a slave the rest of his life. They viewed suicide as a heroic action that took true strength, faith, and courage. Cato the Younger, a stalwart hero of the Republic, fell on his sword if I remember correctly. Similarly, Seppuku in Japan was viewed as an honourable and noble act. The view and opinion of suicide has gone through a great many changes over the centuries, more disfavored now when viewed through a more Christian lens (I swear I had to look that word up, it just doesn’t look right).

I’m of the absolutist bent when it comes to murder for sure. I view wars as giant human sacrifices being orchestrated by altogether unseen forces, subtle and diabolical, yet somehow in control of the levers of power. It would be an act of rebellion against the Creator Himself to murder my fellow man. I really hate that they're driving us all in that direction, that we may actually be faced with such an insane ultimatum, to kill or be killed, and that right soon!

It really does all boil down to one’s belief in the Creator doesn’t it? So how could someone with strong faith and conviction ever commit suicide and believe it morally just? Is that simply moral relativism again or is it a new grey area somewhere in between?

[shaberon]

Responding differently.


Most of this sounds external.

Isn't the subject really about when you were required to take a risk or loss or some pain for a reason?

Or being tempted by something and had to resist?

What about something compromising like a need to deceive a friend for a time period?


It seems to me the only way we can know anything is by dealing with situations that are actually difficult. In my experience, this has very little heroics, like some kind of open dispute with an opposing force, but is more often some kind of decision you have to make individually and spontaneously.

[Agape]

Perhaps it would suffice to say that every "death" is sort-of immoral presuming it contains Divine Love , that "comes and goes" , is attached to an "object", and so forth so it can not be really "sanctified" yet by "not receiving it" we are committing a "sacriliage" , against life and selves and truly, some people - so many people - stopped "living for real" long ago ,
they instead live AI Live , the best they can .

By doing so some may feel they've lifted from the dirtiness , the confusion , even immorality best as could living lives of silent saints in the middle of chaos,
turning evenly to shadows whose skills have been brushed and manners polished
and they never cross the red lights again and call their friends once a year
on the correct date .

Futuristically speaking humans may end up in superclean and well organized biodomes where most pain, disease and suffering will be eradicated in exchange for subdued and dutiful lifestyle ,


and will leave the rest of sinful humans out there .


Perhaps a sin can be just a thought 🤔 even why most religions do not qualify it that way that prevents us from entering the way to the door of heaven.

Our dramatic situation and yuga only compliments to the Path of Detachment
and bares the golden glow of ancient truth so deep we are struggling to grasp .

We now do not approach the knowledge vault by hoarding more information ..

BUT, by discarding most of it ,

liberating our neural slots and synapses

for reasons well explained in the shastra 🙏🕊️🪷


❄️

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Raskolnikov (here)
Excellent analysis everyone, really enjoyed it and super thought provoking. Now that you’ve pretty much got it sussed, I thought we might add one more example to the list - suicide.

Up to Mike if he wants to pursue that question here -- it might be another thread. I'd be interested to read people's thoughts on it though..

Posted by shaberon (here)
Isn't the subject really about when you were required to take a risk or loss or some pain for a reason?

Or being tempted by something and had to resist?

What about something compromising like a need to deceive a friend for a time period?

I have always believed (or I think I just know this deep down) that 'judgement', let's say, of one's moral character, is indeed not the external result of one's actions, but rather what one held in their heart at the time they made the decision.

If it is so that your goal is for the best, but you must do harm in the meantime to achieve that end, then I do not think that is a sin (not a 'Biblical' sin, call it a 'moral transgression'). Of course, it very much depends on the circumstances. There's no rulebook for morality, where the absolute LAW is written in black and black. Everything is situational. An example. If a child wandered into the path of oncoming traffic and you literally tackled that kid and tossed him/her to safety, breaking their arm in the process, that wouldn't be a sin. You hurt the kid, but you didn't mean to hurt them. That wasn't your aim. You simply had an awareness they lacked. They were unaware of the danger they were in. You took action. You were trying to save their life. Your intent was pure.

If an airline pilot cruising at 30,000ft missed the signs that something was wrong, or made an error with an input, or just made the wrong decision at a crucial moment, and the plane went into an irreversible dive and crashed, ruinously, killing everyone on board -- that is his fault, but not his sin. He didn't mean to kill all those people, or himself. A tragedy, but a very different tragedy (and circumstance) to, say, a terrorist hijacker who deliberately crashes the plane.

The morality of one's actions always comes back to intention. One's purpose, aim, or desire. What did you hold in your heart at the time?

Posted by shaberon (here)
It seems to me the only way we can know anything is by dealing with situations that are actually difficult.

The very reason we incarnate on this world.

[Mike]

Posted by shaberon (here)
Responding differently.


Most of this sounds external.

Isn't the subject really about when you were required to take a risk or loss or some pain for a reason?

Or being tempted by something and had to resist?

What about something compromising like a need to deceive a friend for a time period?


It seems to me the only way we can know anything is by dealing with situations that are actually difficult. In my experience, this has very little heroics, like some kind of open dispute with an opposing force, but is more often some kind of decision you have to make individually and spontaneously.

One of the arguments being made is that if morality is indeed absolute it has to come from an external source (God). Some obvious examples of absolute morality would be murder, rape, theft.. just to name a few.

If morality is internal then it is subjective, or relative.

We've also established some grey areas however, where we simply know if some action we are taking is right despite violating what we strongly feel are obvious absolute morals. Some examples have been given. The mechanism responsible for this has been called the holy spirit or consulting spiritual DNA, among others. But the implication is that it is still being directed from a higher source (God) and is therefore absolute in nature.

We've also highlighted the slippery slope there i.e. being able to distinguish the voice of God and our own internal voice.. and how one could fall into a habit perhaps of deliberately mistaking one for the other to justify misdeeds.

The glaring problem with morality not being absolute (relative) as I see it is that we can never make judgments about anything. Nothing, no matter how egregious, can ever be judged as wrong. I think we could make some kind of intellectual arguments for this sort of thing if we were determined to do it, but if we lived this ethos out in the real world it would be an absolute disaster.

Some of this is coming out awkwardly, but I'm working it all out in real time here tbh.

Shaberon what does Buddhism say about this sort of thing? Moral relativism?

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Mike (here)

Posted by shaberon (here)
Responding differently.

Most of this sounds external.

Isn't the subject really about when you were required to take a risk or loss or some pain for a reason?

One of the arguments being made is that if morality is indeed absolute it has to come from an external source (God). Some obvious examples of absolute morality would be murder, rape, theft.. just to name a few.

If morality is internal then it is subjective, or relative.

Small interjection. I think what shaberon was attempting to underline (and it's what I ran with when I answered his question) was not in reference to morality's origin (external or otherwise) but morality as a set of guidelines we internally perceive, and, when proceeding in our daily lives, how faithfully we conform to those guidelines. That was my take on it and what I thought he meant, but I might be off base.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Morality is not relative. I guess that is where absolute morality came from.

Morality has no qualifier.

Only an intelligent being can claim a moral stance or a moral action.

Morality does not change, nor is it debatable.

When there is a moral call to make, it must be applied specifically. That is, for humans, there is an ethical consideration that always enters the situation. Ethics is the moderator of morality. It doesn't make the decision moral, it merely considers the effect of human foibles and proclivities and makes the choice human.

Morals stem from love. They are the rules by which love operates.
We don't understand love, so we are, for the most part, amoral beings.
Conscience is the moral compass, based on the fundamental aspect of "what we are".
We don't understand what we are, so our conscience can be misleading.

Moral relativism is the answer to a question about guilt.
It is the guilty who think they need to justify a moral stance.
Or the pragmatist...

[shaberon]

Posted by Mike (here)
Shaberon what does Buddhism say about this sort of thing? Moral relativism?

Let's say it's not what you just said, and is closer to what Mark said.


God is external?

I know that scriptures are.


Maybe you mean something like "if one's personal morality decides to permit an obvious crime" for "subjective, relative'?

I'm semantically saying morality can't come from an external writing, maybe the idea of it can.


In contrast to 641 Mosaic Laws, no, we don't have anything like that.


In Sanskrit, comparatively, Dharma is of two kinds; outer Dharma governs behavior in the world, so it needs to be harmonized with variety of cultures, whereas inner or personal Dharma is your own business.

The specific name of the external discussion is Mimamsa:

The primary purpose of Mīmāṃsa is to establish the nature of right action (Dharma). The basic premise of Mīmāṃsa is that action is fundamental to the human condition. Without application, knowledge is vain; without action, happiness is impossible; without action human destiny cannot be fulfilled; therefore, right action (Dharma) is the sine-qua-non of a meaningful life on earth.

That's non-Buddhist; it's just philosophy; shared with Jains, atheists, or anybody who can speak.

It's not a legal code. Things like the Laws of Manu are pure speculation; there's no equivalent to the Mosaic Law to be hammered down on everybody.

So I think it may be relative, in response to the posts here, especially in terms about making situational judgements. In that regard, one of our most important saints, Padmasambhava, was a murderer. If he had not done this, there would be no Tibetan Buddhism as we know it. His purpose was to go into exile because otherwise he would have been stuck in the same place.

So, yes, we have some examples where something that by name is a crime becomes tolerated, because there was shown a greater purpose for something that worked.


These medieval Dharmic societies were based on private charity. There was no such thing as "disaster relief". There weren't "social services". Therefor, the idea of wealth -- and this goes back to the Vedic priests -- is not so a monastery itself "gets rich", but, rather, builds a reserve that it has to decide how to administer wisely.

There weren't orphanages. Tibet is so bleak people can't feed their families. I can't read it, but when translated, I am able to find someone who believes in the same thing as me using it to surrender their children to a stranger.

That's a difficult choice isn't it.

I can't say much about Buddhism, but I can answer in terms of Mahayana Buddhism, where our primary values are Dana Sila Ksanti, meaning generosity, ethical discipline, and patience. The meaning of generosity stipulates that, of course, you need to take care of yourself. We understand whatever you have to do to make a living; it means that if and when you are able to profit to excess, you give it away.

In a monarchy, for instance, that applies to the King.

A Dharmic king has few freedoms, many responsibilities, and an obligation to re-invest wealth; the subjects have many freedoms, few responsibilities.

A Divine Right king has many freedoms, few responsibilities, hoards wealth, and owns the subjects.


If you are hoarding wealth to the impoverishment of the people, we have the right to dissect your carcass and knock all the pennies loose.

This is endemic to our system which begins as Matsya Nyaya or Fish Justice (Ajatasatru ca. 400 B. C. E.). There are several instances over the centuries, or, you could say periods of chaos with the occasional great king which is the memory we are trying to keep. And, I think this is true, all the way through the Chinese Tongs, stories of suppressions and revolts. We're trying to find the good thing that works.

In Greek, this is:


Chrestos


and I understand how that is similar to Dharma. But this kind of Classical Greek understanding has vanished, whereas Classical Sanskrit is still the same.



For me, personally, I think this is where my parents lost their grip on me when I was a kid. I kept getting these reprimands because:


That's not right.


What do you mean, "right"? They couldn't explain it. At most it was the relatively mysterious "adult judgment". Since they had nothing more to say, I try to keep looking around about it.

A few years down the road, I've gathered various resources such as Buddhism and its penchant for vegetarianism. I now realize at that point, I was pretty close, dangerously close, to becoming what we now call a Green Nazi. Over time, it started to bother me that it comes down to using one's personal ideas to get something militarily enforced around the world. I prowled some WEF speeches by young people and that's basically what it was. It's like a projection of the voice in the head that is not the voice of God. Like an endless loop of This Is Right.

I am in a deep disagreement with hundreds of millions about what we publicize and project.

I'm really leery about how far I should throw words as actual weapons, it's just unnatural, the human being can hardly be a strong associate of anything much bigger than a City-State. I'm not sure we should automatically whitewash everything with mono-culture. That's what the former Soviet and Communist states found. It's a very plain rejection of liberal democracy, which is, of course, a vehicle of ideas sent by Green Nazis or filthy industrialists or whoever. Plasticated creditory consumerism.

The African complaint is they try to tell you what to do.


So I'm a bit hesitant about that which sounds external and rather abstract. On a personal level, I would have to say relative since words and acts vary by situation and intent, but I would say in the absolute that there is a positive presence of something that is morally good, and that is all I have to give to anyone. That is why I am suited for public-facing work, being that I am automatically motivated to find a way to do something that is good to them, like a reliable appliance. Because I do this and it works, I know it is true where I am, and it is a completely different thing from the subconscious force projection that at one time I would have called good.


The resulting philosophy would be Mimamsa or social harmony is created personally from moment to moment.

It's taken seriously enough that if I go to Skeleton Yoga, then, if you know how famous Oddiyana or Uddiyana is -- the "birthplace" of Padmasambhava -- it's the right side of the brain:




Ḍākinī (female consort): Prabhāmatī;
Ḍāka (male consort): Kaṅkāla;
Bīja: oṃ;
Body-part: right ear;
Pīṭha: Oḍiyāna;
Bodily constituent: tvaṅ-mala (skin/filth);
Bodhipakṣa (wings of enlightenment): mīmāṃsā-ṛddhipāda (power of analysis).


The translation is a bit mild because it says magic power of analyzing dharmic action. That means you have to make a career of doing it before there is any magic power to be had from analyzing it. That's why this is not a prayer you can read right off the page, but a set of instructions to build these qualities.


By Dana, I mainly mean giving my time to beings in a beneficial way. and Sila has a textbook answer that I will give for the lay person such as myself.


The moral conduct (śīla) Buddhists follow are the Pañcaśīla, "Five Precepts", for the laity, Aṣṭaśīla, "Eight Precepts", for nuns and novice monks, and Daśaśīla, "Ten Precepts", for fully ordained monks.

The Pañcaśīla consists of abstaining from the following:

prāṇātipāta, "destroying life",
adattādāna, "taking that which is not given",
kāma-mithyācāra, "improper sexual conduct",
mṛṣāvāda, "lying",
surā-maireya-madya-pramāda-sthāna, "being intoxicated by alcohol".


It doesn't really say you have to be vegetarian.

It implies you could only acquire meat from a non-Buddhist.

It takes me no effort to not do something and it requires no attention.

The only possible meaning of Dana for poor people is our time. I'm not going to give you any thing. I can say or do something. That's it. We have a lot of animals and I try to pet them all every day. That counts because they feel something. I'm basically trying to export that everywhere, but people are more complicated. I can only say this is perpetual and tenacious on my part.

I don't really use a lot of stock quotes, but, this is something that echoes the concern that -- let's say, immaterial Dana works and I've done it -- but things can be complicated and human beings make it more difficult for reasons that are basically unnecessary. Shantideva says:


Because of You, I am going to become a Buddha and liberate countless world systems.

Because of Me, You are going to go to Hell and endure unending agonies.


It is, ultimately, sad. Right now people are inflicting harm to all sorts of living beings and then they are going to hell. Many of those beings, themselves, were morally unfit, and they are going to hell. There is all manner of evil running amok and I've done nothing about it. Things that I would not want to happen to me, are happening to someone. I have heard that Noble Avalokiteshvara the Bodhisattva Mahasattva was so powerful, he walked into hell unharmed, and began preaching to the suffering souls. Anyone that listened to him gained the Dharma and they were thereby liberated from hell. He went through all the various regions, draining them of inhabitants. When he got to the end, he turned around and looked and it was fully refilled.

And so what we want to do is actually Close the Door to Hell.

That is how I would try to put it in terms of outer Dharma, to seek a harmony with non-Buddhists of any faith or atheists, because Mimamsa still makes sense, even on a scientific and biological level. I think our primary difference with Christianity is theological. I can bring in the twenty or so sayings of Jesus that appear the same as the Pali Agamas. I personally take it as a clue to the existence of the Therapeutae.

The general principles I've described are nothing imposed on me, but voluntarily selected. No one has to use the liturgy I follow, but I would certainly favor social structures that are compatible with Dharma.


I was going to post something but it was a completely foreign language website which is Indonesian. For Buddhism they use the same Sanskrit, but they write with an accent. It's a functioning temple or some kind of organization, but look at the name and where it hangs on the globe:




That's Indonesian.

What seemed unusual, is that for donations, they simply post their bank account number.

I think Buddhism may be partly similar to the Ten Commandments and maybe Sermon on the Mount. And with these kinds of things I find it a non-issue, because most of it is basically how I feel to start with. I don't know what it's like to have a harmful personality you are being told to control. I don't pay much attention to teachings on conduct because it comes naturally anyway, and I mentally respond to the subject in terms of moral strength that one conveys at all times because of something more contained within it.