|
Ped
Interested In Your Brain



Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Nomad]
#2889729 - 07/14/04 01:02 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Perhaps I was too vauge. Buddha said that our main wish is for happiness and freedom from suffering. The point here is that chasing happiness and avoiding suffering -- attachment and aversion -- are the momentum behind everything that we do. Since all things in this world are transistory, and since human beings attach themselves to transistory objects and depend on them sources of happiness, when human beings develop attachment to people or objects they find not happiness, but only what is called "changing suffering." In developing attachment and maintaining aversion, all we achieve is a trade between one kind of suffering and another.
For example, many people believe that romantic relationships are a reliable source of happiness and meaning. However, when we enter into a relationship with the expectation to find happiness, we are developing a feeling for the other person contaminated with self interest. This is not love, it is attachment. True love is void of self-concern. When we attach ourselves to another person, we are attaching ourself to a highly transistory object. It will not be long before that object begins to change. When there is change, we will become frustrated and unhappy, like children. We lose our happiness. This is especially true if our attachment to the other person is particularly superficial. In this way, when we are entering into a relationship with another human being motivated primarily by self-concern, it's through this attachment that we are trading the suffering of lonliness for the suffering of our inevitable disappointment. This would be an example of a samsaric cycle.
Buddha also said that there is no happiness within samsara, only the many forms of suffering. So long as we maintain our own selves as the object of our cherishing, so the world which appears to our mind will be a samsaric one, and so we will live life after life in pain, experiencing only brief moments of deluded happiness. True happiness, Buddha said, is freedom from samsara. Freedom from samsara only happens when we are able to extinguish our hallucinated idea of self, thereby eliminating the mistaken views of inherent existence. So long as we are cherishing a self that does not exist, we will be slave to mistaken perception. Therefore, the only means of attaining happinesss both in this samsaric life and in ultimate reality, is to practice cherising others.
--------------------
Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace
|
JacquesCousteau
Being.


Registered: 06/10/03
Posts: 7,825
Loc: Everywhere, Everytime.
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Ped]
#2890317 - 07/14/04 03:07 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Everything he just said.
|
Mushmonkey
shiftlesslayabout


Registered: 09/25/03
Posts: 10,867
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
|
He's right, you know.
Swami, that is.
And realize that he didn't say that it should be so, or that it should not be so. It simply IS so, no matter whether you think that right or not.
That which we are unfamiliar with we are less likely to feel uncomfortable with if it comes to harm. That's not a philosophical choice that we make, that is something that is bred into us as animals. All life is self-serving. If we see something similar to us, we like it and do not like seeing it harmed because WE do not like to be harmed. If we see something very different than us, it matters much less to us what happens to it because we don't equate its well-being with our own well-being. That covers the appearance, and even actually actions, of something.
Hence the reason that, especially in times of war, racial/cultural slurs are/were very often used to describe the enemy. They're not people like us Americans, they're just a bunch of no-good krauts, or japs, or gooks, or no-good Reds, or towelheads. And that's something that you can extend allll the way back to the beginning of time. It helps keep those one will be killing inhuman in one's mind, and as such there is less resistance to not only causing them harm, but also in knowing that they are being harmed.
Distance, physical distance, also works towards the same end. It's a lot easier to drop a bomb on a city than stab someone face-to-face. From a distance, it's not as apparent that what you are doing is actually killing people that look more or less like you.
|
Huehuecoyotl
Fading Slowly


Registered: 06/13/04
Posts: 10,685
Loc: On the Border
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Swami]
#2891368 - 07/14/04 09:09 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Your sense of morality should extend to all people on this planet. No one is any less than anyone else. War is not about morality. It is not fought for moral reasons. If morality were considered war would not be. War is fought for survival and nothing else. Soldiers are killers. Compassion should temper their judgement, but they are often asked to commit immoral acts. That is why so many return from war with shattered minds...because they ARE moral people with a highly developed sense of right and they just spent a combat tour violating that. I don't agree with the arguments that got us into Iraq and this post is not a politically motivated one. I am simply stating that in war morality is cast aside for the survival of a culture that promotes morality as a virtue. War is savage violence no matter the cause or the war, and it is not moral.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
#2891402 - 07/14/04 09:25 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
That, however, is the point. Morality has ALWAYS been about preserving one's culture and tribe and is not concerned with other tribes until after the common definition of the tribe is expanded to include the new one.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Huehuecoyotl
Fading Slowly


Registered: 06/13/04
Posts: 10,685
Loc: On the Border
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Swami]
#2891430 - 07/14/04 09:43 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
True. Morality is about preserving one's culture and tribe. What it will take for the world to see that there is only one tribe, I don't know. As long as there are those that believe that the way to claim one's rights is to take the rights of another there will be war. That means us, them, or whoever. Regardless, though, our every action should be thought out taking into account the rights and feelings of all others concerned as much as possible...but I guess everyone should know that already.
|
Nomad
Mad Robot

Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 16 years, 1 month
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Ped]
#2892494 - 07/15/04 06:37 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Perhaps I was too vauge. Buddha said that our main wish is for happiness and freedom from suffering. The point here is that chasing happiness and avoiding suffering -- attachment and aversion -- are the momentum behind everything that we do. In that case, I agree with the latter and disagree with the former. You see, I'm not trying to fool around with details here, I really consider this an important point. The idea that life is about happiness, the achievement and upkeeping of happiness, was a relatively minor philosophical idea in ancient greece, then it disappeared, and then it somehow stepped back onto the scene and conquered the western world. And it's not hard to see why this is so if we look at where this idea is pushed forward the hardest: It's in advertisement. Capitalism is the shady figure in the background here. The claim that our main wish is happiness reduces life to a drug experience, and, respectively, humans to drug addicts. We have labeled the molecules which cause happiness, we can isolate them, we know drugs which artificially trigger the mechanism in the brain. And just like with any other drug, the body shows the distinct pattern of developing resistance: Don't ask me how, but psychologists are somehow able to measure the happiness of a person using a questionnaire, at least they claim so. Now, when a person marries, their level of happiness rises above that of the unmarried person, but then, after some time, drops down to normal. If the spouse dies, their happiness is lowered below the level of the unmarried person, then returns to normal. So if one is going for happiness, why not do it with drugs in the first place? I'm not joking about that shooting heroine thing - I mean, if you have the money to get clean heroine without the usual rat poison in it, you wouldn't even damage your health. Of course, you would be an utter unproductive member of society, lying around like a wreck most of the time, your life completely wasted, yet quite happy you would be, I guess. As a buddhist, I do not think that life is about getting high. I would like to think that it is about the pursuit of truth. The idea that the goal of life, especially the religious life, is to sit around being blissfully happy is essentially a hindu concept. Gonig on-topic again, I remember when I first read the Buddha's ten reasons why we should develop unconditional love towards all creatures. What amazed me was that all of the ten reasons were completely selfish! One was that you would sleep better and awake refreshed. One was that, if you die before your enlightenment, you would at least go to heaven (which makes love a kind of spiritual safety net). Wild animals would be less likely to attack you, your skills in meditation would dramatically increase, and, last but not least, little invisible creatures - devas, although I imagine them as elves - attracted to love the same way moths are attracted to light, would flutter around you and protect you. Some time ago, I thought that I should really brush up on the ethical aspect of my path, that ethical behaviour is not some side effect of the religious life, but that the whole thing should flow from that as a base which cannot be shattered. What I discovered is that just that, just trying to be the best possible person at any moment, really set things off for me, as if, somewhere deep within the dark bottom of the universe, something switched, and now my subconscious was suddenly working in favor of me instead of against. It's true, actually, ethical behaviour is almost (almost!) a complete path to awakening. Happiness here is just a side effect, arising and passing, but other things last. It's as if the wind was blowing at your back, astonishing. Swami seems to point out that there is a selfish part in our moral behaviour, that we help those close to us because we get something back from them. But even unconditional love is selfish, which does not belittle it, but makes it greater actually. I understand that this is not an idea which will gather much friends these times. Very well, then: Let them be evil. This only creates more opportunities for me to be good.
Edited by Nomad (07/15/04 06:43 AM)
|
Nomad
Mad Robot

Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 16 years, 1 month
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Nomad]
#2892496 - 07/15/04 06:39 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
If the spouse dies, their happiness is lowered
That is, the level of happiness of the surviving partner, not that of the dead one.
|
Scarfmeister
Thrill Seeker
Registered: 10/31/02
Posts: 8,127
Loc: The will to power
Last seen: 4 years, 6 months
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Swami]
#2892511 - 07/15/04 06:54 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Swami this makes sense.
-------------------- -------------------- We're the lowest of the low, the scum of the fucking earth!
|
kaiowas
lest we baguette


Registered: 07/14/03
Posts: 5,501
Loc: oz
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Scarfmeister]
#2892679 - 07/15/04 08:03 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
morality: conformity to the rules to the rules of right conduct; doctrine or system of morals.
as far as this goes I think it is completely bogus. Morals are taught, and as a person changes throughout their life, their morals will too, based on their experiences. So saying there is one all out system for the "right conduct" seems rather closed-minded.
now that is not to say that there can be a certain way to help move things more efficiently. look at it this way, is it common sense to any of you to treat people as you want to be treated? does anyone see if you do treat people how you want to be treated, things can run a lot smoother for you? These of course are selfish reasons, but hey, you are here, and if you yell at someone to get you something rather than ask politely, you may be making life that much harder one yourself.
Ped, I have given so much thought about why we do what we do. what is the hidden intent behind each of our decisions. Freedom from suffering internally ranks high in my book. I emphasis on internally because you cannot totally control what happens around you. Plus if you don't emphasis on the internal world, people may not realize that it is their imposing of their will on every single situation that is the main source of their unhappiness. many people see it as impossible to be in a continuous state of happiness, so we lower our standards. We don't think that we have always had enough to be happy, rather than relying on the external world for happiness. it's not what happens outside, it's how you feel about it inside.
just some thoughts...
-------------------- Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
|
Re: Brahmavihara Maitri Karuna Mudita Upeksha [Re: Swami]
#2899147 - 07/17/04 03:32 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Sure, the nonsense of morality is as important as the morality of nonsense. Morality ever has sense in it (for the good or the bad). Sure the sense is limited by the wall of light and conscious beeings
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Brahmavihara Maitri Karuna Mudita Upeksha [Re: BlueCoyote]
#2899902 - 07/17/04 01:50 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Even the most moral person will still choose their child over another in a crisis situation which is egocentric and primal.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
|
Re: Brahmavihara Maitri Karuna Mudita Upeksha [Re: Swami]
#2899939 - 07/17/04 02:07 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
This is all very true. It should be noted, however, that this says nothing about the nature of morality, but instead comments on human nature.
If there were/are objective moral truths, then they would not dissipate with distance.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Brahmavihara Maitri Karuna Mudita Upeksha [Re: deafpanda]
#2899949 - 07/17/04 02:16 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Were we talking about cockroach morality? Please explain how morality is SEPARATE FROM human nature.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Ped]
#2899953 - 07/17/04 02:20 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
For example, many people believe that romantic relationships are a reliable source of happiness and meaning. However, when we enter into a relationship with the expectation to find happiness, we are developing a feeling for the other person contaminated with self interest.
Nice text-book Zen; however ALL voluntary relationships are formed with self-interest in mind.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Swami]
#2899996 - 07/17/04 02:42 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I think you misunderstood me, I'm not arguing that position, merely pointing out that that position could be, and has been argued by many. A hell of a lot of people think that morality is god-given, or really exists in some form (for example, Plato's forms) apart from humans.
I was merely pointing out that recognising such inconsistencies within human application of "morality" is not a case for morality itself being non-existant, or nonsensical.
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
|
Re: Brahmavihara Maitri Karuna Mudita Upeksha [Re: Swami]
#2900017 - 07/17/04 02:51 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Ah, now I understand the plot. So, would it be the highest morality to sacrifice his own child to reach some (very) high target ? Or is it the highest morality not to do so ? Is it a term of definition ? Perhaps it's the highest morality to not follow an order (like in war, where human rights are offended) ? So, morality isn't something artificial, but something inherent human ? Or is it the highest morality to leave egoistic human thoughts, like sacrificing him/herself. Yes in common sense, morality is about serving the 'good'. But this principle has been taken to cover the most evil deeds happened in history. That leads to the question: Can the purpose sanctify the means. I think: No, never. Implications will follow. So everybody has to hold his own present morality and everybody has to judge (and will be judged) depending on that. Even in a crisis situation. I think, then, morality gets back some sense  But you all are right. It's a very intresting, crippling, indifferent and current topic.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Brahmavihara Maitri Karuna Mudita Upeksha [Re: BlueCoyote]
#2900047 - 07/17/04 03:04 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
So, would it be the highest morality to sacrifice his own child to reach some (very) high target ?
I am not saying that it would be more moral, just that all decisions are based on our needs and any spiritual ramblings otherwise are purely pretense. We are at the center of our universe and those things and people furthest from our center (picture concentric circles going out to infinity from a core) are least considered when making choices.
Is it easier to kill an ant or a dog? A countryman or a foreigner? Is it easier for a self-proclaimed religious politician to send his own son or even one of his own social class to a war zone or a poor, semi-literate inner city kid?
Those that claim stealing is wrong would easily rationalize if anarchy reigned, food was scarce and they had to feed their family.
Bascially ALL moral guideposts are temporary and malleable.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
|
Re: Brahmavihara Maitri Karuna Mudita Upeksha [Re: Swami]
#2900273 - 07/17/04 04:04 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
But, because of the exceptions confirm the rules and those guideposts are left only exceptional, morality does make sense  But surely not everybody is as moral as another and one sooner leaves those guideposts, the other does it later, or perhaps never. Malleable ? Yes, every guidepost needs very close inspection, to claim it moral and not selfish, stupid or even immoral.
Claiming all-valid moral rules, does not mean, that, if they have to be left out exceptionally , it makes them worthless. It's the other way round. But you shouldn't make the exceptions the rule, or let the purpose sanctify the means
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Brahmavihara Maitri Karuna Mudita Upeksha [Re: BlueCoyote]
#2900337 - 07/17/04 04:25 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
The "normal" moral rules are still self-serving. People co-operate with you to get what they need; it that doesn't work (and it does most of the time) they will try another tactic. Morality is a general agreement to make society work.
We spend millions prosecuting Scott Peterson because he did a heinous immoral act that threatens Amercian marriage if he gets away with it. Then we yawn in boredom when another innocent Iraqi civilian gets killed by Coalition forces.
So is it the killing of another human being that so bothers us or the potential to disrupt our orderly lives?
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
|