|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
The Nonsense of Morality
#2885989 - 07/13/04 12:18 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Swami's Law of Morality (not based on my ideology, but on observation) states that morality is like light, it dissipates as the square of the distance from the source.
Restated, the further something is away from the observer genetically, culturally, and/or geographically, the more acceptable it is to harm.
I have to go run some errands - I know, I know - and will be back later to extrapolate.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Mixomatosis
great ape

Registered: 10/28/03
Posts: 1,306
Loc: cipherland
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Swami]
#2886000 - 07/13/04 12:20 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I hope you don't go buy any milk or factory farmed meats
|
DoctorJ


Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Swami]
#2886006 - 07/13/04 12:21 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
morality is bullshit
there is no such thing as what a person should do.
there is only what a person can do.
|
Moonshoe
Blue Mantis


Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 27,202
Loc: Iceland
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Swami]
#2886016 - 07/13/04 12:23 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Um.. so first you define morality for everyone, than you call it nonsense.
I agree that your definition of morality is flawed and nonsensical. What a stimulating post.

I know what you mean though, lots of people do base there morality on this idea. Hmm, a while ago i posted a thread about the different types of morality, i should have included this one.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 19 days
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Swami]
#2886054 - 07/13/04 12:33 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Is this the same as a "do as I say, not as I do" sort of thing?
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
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: Swami]
#2886259 - 07/13/04 01:16 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
>> The further something is away from the observer genetically, culturally, and/or geographically, the more acceptable it is to harm.
So, the "less connected" someone is to me, the more acceptable it is for me to bring them harm? Is this not a totally self-centered point of view? That one's self is of paramount importance, and that all others are organized in their importance relative to the supremely important self: is it rational to approach the world from such a disposition? After all, if everyone in the world conceives of themselves as most important, and if this view is seen as "natural", would not everyone in the world be both valueless and extremely valuable at the same time? Would such insanity not act is the foundation for enormous pain and suffering, such as that seen in wars, or on day time talk shows, or in fact all around us, all the time?
Is it not so that you've just identified as natural law the very root of all human and animal suffering? How depressing. I can't help but feel a tad bit condemned.
Now, this does not mean that I believe morality to be some kind of all-assuming set of laws imposed upon us from some external source, or that morality should be adopted for one's self in such a way. Instead, we should decide for ourselves -- in accordance with our wishes -- what our ethics should be.
Buddha said -- and I've yet to hear anyone disagree with this -- that our main wish is to be happy. It is probable, then, that as human beings we decide upon certain avenues to happiness and then build a morality structure which enables us to pursue those wishes.
Some people believe that the accumulation of material goods, wealth, success, fame, power, are avenues to happiness. In accordance with this belief, such people organize for themselves a moral structure -- and indeed a unique perspective on the world itself -- which enables them to accomplish these goals. For one to obtain such things as wealth, fame, and power, one must conceive of him or herself as priority one in the universe. Once such a view has been adopted, all others are then organized in their importance relative to their value to the self. It is decided who is valuable and who is expendable, and what degree it is acceptable for others to suffer so that we might fulfill our selfish wishes. Caring for others, giving freely to those less advantaged, or even devoting thought to the welfare of other living beings: these are not seen as an efficient means of procuring enormous wealth, and therefore according to this popular worldview are not avenues to happiness.
To reiterate, my personal opinion is that we should (and always do) decide upon our personal moral conduct in accordance with our personal wishes. Furthermore, it is quite clear that all living beings have the fundamental wish to be happy. So, it is fair to suggest that we should decide upon our morals in accordance with our wish to be happy. Before we can have success with this, however, we must properly understand what are reliable avenues to happiness.
Clearly, wealth, fame, and power are not reliable avenues to happiness. There appears to be a direct correlation between an individual's wealth, fame, or power, and the degree to which their lives are difficult and unmanagable. The more wealthy somebody is, the more susceptible they are to fluctuations in the economy, to economic disaster, or disaster in their business or industry. Even though they have many expensive objects, they have the endless task of maintaining and defending that wealth from the constant threat of ruin. The more famous somebody is, the more they have to hide from the media, are exposed to constant criticism, are the target of lawsuits and sometimes even physical attacks. Even though they are adored and beloved by many, they must encounter tremendous hardship every day. The more powerful somebody is, the more they are the focus of rival powers. They might come under legal fire, or in the case of political power they may come under gunfire. While they have enormous control over corporations, entire populations, they must deal with a constant fear for their security. It would seem that the degree of someone's wealth, fame, or power is indeed directly proportionate to the degree of anxiety they have to endure. Clearly, neither wealth, fame, nor power are sources of happiness: they are sources of suffering.
And so we should examine the root of these false approaches to happiness, and then choose an alternative. We are able to pursue wealth, fame, and power only because we maintain the belief that we ourselves are most important. Since neither wealth, fame, nor power have the ability to bring us reliable happiness and actual freedom from suffering, would it not make sense to adopt a moral structure which conceives of others as most important? How would we behave if our belief was that the wellbeing of others was of greater importance than our own? Would be interested in the above described selfish pursuits? Would we be volnurable to the sufferings they produce?
Moreover, if it's true that self-centred morality structures generate enormous suffering and only temporary, fleeting happiness, would it not be logical to conclude that other-centred morality structures might generate enormous happiness and only temporary, transistory suffering? It might be very helpful to contemplate this question in the context of our own lives.
"All living beings wish for happiness, but out of ignorance they destroy it like a foe." -- Je Tsongkhapa
--------------------
Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace
|
Source
Remainder of anUnbalancedEquation


Registered: 07/28/03
Posts: 667
Loc: Outer Darkness
Last seen: 10 years, 1 month
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Ped]
#2886457 - 07/13/04 02:25 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Ped, I completely agree with you. Lasting happiness can only be found in selfless service to others.
However, I think Swami's point was that through his own observations of human nature, he believes that people tend to care more about what is nearest to them. I don't think he was defending that point of view, only pointing out the hypocracy of the 'moralists' who, for example, put cans in the church food drive then support the United Sates' policy of destroying the infrastructure of a foreign land resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children (i.e. pre-war Iraq sanctions).
-------------------- What you're searching for is what's searching.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Ped]
#2886477 - 07/13/04 02:28 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
So, the "less connected" someone is to me, the more acceptable it is for me to bring them harm?
Yes, this is true for everyone; even students of Buddha. I would wager that in an emergency situation where one could save one life over another; that one would choose a loved one over a stranger every single time. While this hypothetical may be pushing the limits it clearly illustrates how we think.
The Iraqi invasion was a relatively easy sell because:
a. America is predominantly Christian whereas Iraq is predominently Muslim.
b. America is predominently European (for only a short while longer) while Iraq is mostly Arab.
c. Geographically they are on the other side of the planet.
Some might counter this by pointing out the American Civil War. This conflict was not an overnight happening. First people's minds had to shift to paint their future enemy as "the other".
Northerners became "robber barons", "damn Yankees" and "nigger lovers".
Sountherners became villainous slave traders, "traitors", "hillbillies", etc.
Only once the us / them transition was nearly complete did war become possible.
Why are we more shocked by the Simpson and Peterson murders than a random drive-by shooting? Because the victim and perpertrator were intimate, thus violating a deeper "moral" code than the equally heinous drive-by.
--------------------
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: Moonshoe]
#2886480 - 07/13/04 02:31 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Um.. so first you define morality for everyone, than you call it nonsense.
If I look outside the window and note that it is raining, I am observing, not defining.
I call morality "nonsense" as it is all-too-often portrayed as some deep set of spiritual laws rather than as a set of malleable self-serving rules.
--------------------
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: Seuss]
#2886486 - 07/13/04 02:33 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Is this the same as a "do as I say, not as I do" sort of thing?
No, it is much deeper than that. It is about not pretending about our motivations. Seeing things as they are instead of how we would like them to be is the first step towards wisdom.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
DoctorJ


Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Swami]
#2886491 - 07/13/04 02:36 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
your thoughts in this matter seem to run parallell to my idea that there are no such thing as rights,there are only such things as capabilities.
I suppose the difference between moralists and scientists is that moralists are always trying to figure out how things should be whereas scientists are trying to figure out how things are
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Mixomatosis]
#2886503 - 07/13/04 02:40 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I hope you don't go buy any milk or factory farmed meats
My doctor told me my cholesterol was too low and besides my immune system is impervious to any... *gak* *cough* *arrgghhhhhh!*
*Thunk*
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Ped
Interested In Your Brain



Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
Brahmavihara Maitri Karuna Mudita Upeksha [Re: Swami]
#2886730 - 07/13/04 03:56 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
>> Yes, this is true for everyone; I don't disagree that it's true for everyone. That's the problem with the world. Human beings conceive of themselves as being of paramount importance not only as individuals, but also as a race. Individual human beings prioritize themselves above all other human beings. The entire population of human beings conceives of itself as more important than all other living beings. This is precisely the reason why there is so much imbalance in the world. As human beings we have traded our sense of equanamity for personal gain. It is the root of all suffering. >> even students of Buddha. I don't disagree with this either. Students of Buddha, however, recognize their self-cherishing as a fault and train in cherishing others. There is a meditation called "exchanging self with others", where the focus is on making others the object of our cherishing, instead of ourselves. The entire Buddhist path is centred upon elminating self-cherising and the mistaken views which arise from it, and perfecting wisdom and proper awareness through the cherishing of others. Through the cultivation of immeasurable love, immesurable compassion, immeasurable joy, and immesurable equanimity, Buddhists intend to depart from cycles of suffering and enter inpreturbable bliss. Equanimity is a mind which conceives of all living beings with equality and worthiness of the fulfillment of their most basic wish: happiness. Equanimity is a central component to true spiritual freedom. >> Seeing things as they are instead of how we would like them to be is the first step towards wisdom. Greater than this is the willingness to patiently accept things as they are, and not expect them to be any different. That is called faith. To me, Swami, it sounds like you're identifying "how things are", and then suggesting that they are proper, that they need not change. While I agree with your assessment of things, I do not agree that we should simply remain this way, believing ourselves to be wise in doing so.
--------------------
Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace
|
Moonshoe
Blue Mantis


Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 27,202
Loc: Iceland
|
Re: Brahmavihara Maitri Karuna Mudita Upeksha [Re: Ped]
#2887847 - 07/13/04 10:38 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
gotcha gotcha, i see what your saying i would agree that this is definetly the predominant form of 'morality' in the world, simply because it is the easiest one to follow.
However, it is not the only possible form of morality, and i think alot of people do go beyond it, such as vegans who feel so much compassion for not only another race but another species , and the ecolovers whose personal morality leads them to endure great hardships to save trees and plants.
Many others still have seen through racist/nationalist/sexist (etc) boundaries and feel compassion to all of humanity, or even all living things.
These people are statistically very rare, no doubt, but they do exist, showing that morality can indeed be a higher calling rather than a simple self-serving reaction.
The reason, i think, that so many people base their moralities on how closely something is connected to you is that the more the person your helping reminds you of yourself, the more you feel like your helping yourself. However, awareness of the fallacies inherent in this thinking allow us to go beyond.
|
Divided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: Brahmavihara Maitri Karuna Mudita Upeksha [Re: Swami]
#2887947 - 07/13/04 11:09 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Ped, you are absolutely right. In reality there is no true happiness that comes from self-cherishing and serving, all happiness comes from virtuos and altruistic living. People caught in Samsara fall for the same trick over and over again, that serving themselves through luxury or material pleasure will give them real happiness. It never does. Most people don't realize how unhappy they are because they derive a sort of contentment from future hopes. In the present they are discontent but they keep thinking "Just as soon as I get THAT, then everything will be great" It is a perpetual cycle that leads nowhere. There is no contment from selfish actions, only illusion. Even more ridiculous is that the self we try to serve is only in our minds anyway. The only real source of happiness is through valuing and having compassion for others. This means that morality is the only source of true joy. Virtue is essential to a satisfying existence. I think alot of people on these boards (myself included) have mistakenly believed that awareness and knowledge in themselves bring hapiness. I don't think this is the case, wisdom and experience must go hand in hand with virtue, compassion and discipline. Morality is more important than knowledge.
|
Worldbridger
Nemo Lotus

Registered: 05/15/04
Posts: 1,479
Last seen: 18 years, 6 days
|
Re: Brahmavihara Maitri Karuna Mudita Upeksha [Re: Divided_Sky]
#2887957 - 07/13/04 11:14 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
beleive system = b.s.
I find it good to change it around every once in a while so it doesn't become too embedded and boring.
|
Nomad
Mad Robot

Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 16 years, 1 month
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Ped]
#2888746 - 07/14/04 06:48 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Buddha said -- and I've yet to hear anyone disagree with this -- that our main wish is to be happy.
No problem, dude. I will disagree twice: First I will disagree that our main wish is to be happy, and then I'll disagree that the Buddha actually said this.
Someone who's life purpose is to be happy has to be congratulated, since this is to be achieved remarkably easy in these times. You merely have to make as much money as possible, and then inject yourself pure heroine as often as possible. No higher happiness around than this one, I guess.
Happiness appears prominently in the buddhist path, but only as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. The main wish of everybody, if such a thing exists, would be the ending of suffering - not the same as happiness. Suffering arises from happiness, our clinging to and craving for it. That's why the buddha did not teach happiness:
"Like the whole of the ocean has only one taste, that of salt, so my entire teaching has only one taste: That of freedom."
He would go to painful lengths to explain that freedom is what lies beyond our craving for happiness and our aversion for unhappiness. Check out the Dighanakha Sutta.
This is not really a criticism of your post, which is a great one. But, well, to make a point: Fuck hedonism. There's an australian monk who "repackages" the four noble truths as the truth of happiness, the truth of the cause of happiness, the truth of the arising of happiness, and the truth of the path to happiness. This is based on the Buddha saying that "Nibbana is the highest happiness", but again, it seems to me that happiness is only a side effect of nibbana, or freedom. It's not the goal.
|
Fliquid
Back from being gone.


Registered: 03/18/02
Posts: 6,953
Loc: omotive
Last seen: 8 years, 6 months
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: DoctorJ]
#2888880 - 07/14/04 08:33 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DoctorJ said: morality is bullshit
there is no such thing as what a person should do.
there is only what a person can do.
Fully agree, I try to change my should's into could's when I notice the old habbit of telling someone something.
--------------------
My latest music!
|
Source
Remainder of anUnbalancedEquation


Registered: 07/28/03
Posts: 667
Loc: Outer Darkness
Last seen: 10 years, 1 month
|
Re: Brahmavihara Maitri Karuna Mudita Upeksha [Re: Ped]
#2889042 - 07/14/04 09:58 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
"The reason people are unhappy is because 99.9% of everything they do is for thier self...and there isn't one"
I don't remember who said that, but it's a good one!
-------------------- What you're searching for is what's searching.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!


Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: Brahmavihara Maitri Karuna Mudita Upeksha [Re: Swami]
#2889141 - 07/14/04 10:36 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Unfortunately, it is just a fact of life that people will end up treating people differently based on how well they know them. You're bound to have special relationships to certain people, which will mean treating them better than you would your average stranger on the street.
--------------------
  "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
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.
|
Rhizoid
carbon unit


Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 14 hours, 19 minutes
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Swami]
#2900777 - 07/17/04 08:13 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Swami's observation is of course correct.
Morality is always subjective, it always has a purpose. Morality without purpose would be sort of meaningless wouldn't it?
For most people this purpose boils down to self-propagation and the propagation of their DNA. But sometimes people find other and more self-transcending things that they designate as their purpose. That's what makes us Homo Sapiens being an interesting species after all. Without the self-transcendent stuff we would just be boring monkeys, with very little potential power to create new things to value.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Rhizoid]
#2900804 - 07/17/04 08:29 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
But sometimes people find other and more self-transcending things that they designate as their purpose.
Maybe these transcenders are more forward-looking and not necessarily less self-serving. Someone trying to save the rain forests may see be very interested in preserving the human race (and his DNA) beyond the next five generations and sees the possible repercussions if nothing is done.
My niece just went to the Philippines as a Christian missionary. She is not really interested in the people there, but in converting some to her ideology. It is an attempt to earn favor with her parents and Church (approval) and to make others more in her image and likeness (subtle violence and coercion).
--------------------
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]
#2901014 - 07/17/04 09:46 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
"She is not really interested in the people there, but in converting some to her ideology"
She might be a nice girl, but that sort of activity is cultural genocide.
|
Rhizoid
carbon unit


Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 14 hours, 19 minutes
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Swami]
#2901036 - 07/17/04 09:51 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, when it comes to DNA propagation there is really no sharp boundary, in terms of basic motivation, between fucking for procreation and hugging trees for Mother Gaia.
On the other note, it's very disturbing that so many self-transcendence ideologies tend to hurt people. But for exactly that reason I think they (the problematic ideologies) will either fade away or transform into less hurtful ideologies.
|
Huehuecoyotl
Fading Slowly


Registered: 06/13/04
Posts: 10,685
Loc: On the Border
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Swami]
#2901044 - 07/17/04 09:54 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
The depletion of the rain forests in the Amazon in the 80s and 90s (some today) was the direct result of the influence of christian missionaries.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
#2901139 - 07/17/04 10:28 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
And the world's hunger for cheap beef (read: McDonald's). The funny part is: the stripped land is very poor for grazing.
--------------------
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]
#2901166 - 07/17/04 10:37 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Most of the soil composition in the rainforest is sand. The competition between plants is that intense that the soil has mostly been leeched to sand. Poor farming land too...but a great place to drill oil...after you run off the people who stripped it for agricultural purposes. Then the missionaries move on to christianize another tribe...
|
kaiowas
lest we baguette


Registered: 07/14/03
Posts: 5,501
Loc: oz
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Rhizoid]
#2901208 - 07/17/04 10:55 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
awesome thread!
"For most people this purpose boils down to self-propagation and the propagation of their DNA. But sometimes people find other and more self-transcending things that they designate as their purpose. That's what makes us Homo Sapiens being an interesting species after all. Without the self-transcendent stuff we would just be boring monkeys, with very little potential power to create new things to value. "
btw, good to see you here rhizoid
-------------------- 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.
|
DrubuShrume
EAT ME - I'm afungi

Registered: 05/14/02
Posts: 449
Loc: Right where I need to be
Last seen: 16 years, 4 months
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Swami]
#2901352 - 07/18/04 12:03 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I live my life treating people as an "end-in-themself" as opposed to a "means-to-an-end" a-la Immanuel Kant.... treat people as a goal as opposed to a way to get to a goal...
-------------------- AH HA....
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: DrubuShrume]
#2901659 - 07/18/04 03:24 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|

<- doesn't like to be used as a mean. I am my own mean to what purpose I select by myself This mean must totally fulfill that purpose. And morality of others I only accept, if they comply with my utter inner morality. So you have constantly check yourself and also claim the others morality as immoral if adequate. As I said, morality has proven to cover the most evil deeds in history. One should avoid to step into this trap.
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: BlueCoyote]
#2901760 - 07/18/04 05:17 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I would say that morality is subjective. If it was objective, then we are not good at applying it, since everyone has different ideas.
Either way, because of this, I think that morality should stay the fuck away from lawmaking. Laws should be strictly utilitarian in nature - they should make the world a happier place. Banning gay mariage, contraception, abortions on "moral" grounds is pretty sick.
However, I think that there are objective *relative* moral truths. For example, I believe that "killing one baby for no reason is better than killing two babies for no reason" is a true moral statement, independent of the subject. In real life, though, propositions are rarely this clear-cut.
|
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: Swami]
#2908131 - 07/20/04 10:55 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
>> ALL voluntary relationships are formed with self-interest in mind
Why? Why do you keep insisting that all human beings are inherently selfish, as though self-centredness were our first nature? If self-interest were our first nature, we would be unable to change that trait in ourselves. Because we are able to train ourselves to become less self-centred -- eventually completely other-centred -- it must be true that self-centredness is not an inherent aspect of our being. If self-interest were our first nature, we would be perfectly harmonious with this part of ourselves. Because the world is filled with suffering and conflict which has it's root in self-centredness, it must be true that self-centeredness is something layered overtop of what we actually are.
Simply because the self-first attitude is so deeply ingrained that it is almost instinctual does not necessarily indicate that the trait is either unchangeable nor natural. Simply because the habit of self-cherishing permeates much of our motivation now does not mean we are supposed to be this way, or that we forever bound to continue this way.
--------------------
Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Ped]
#2908172 - 07/20/04 11:10 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Why? Why do you keep insisting that all human beings are inherently selfish...
Um, because it is true.
Let's take a poll and you can start:
Who here dates another that they cannot stand to be around?
Who here has a best friend from whom they get nothing in return from?
If a terrorist held you, a friend and a politically unimportant stranger as hostages and asked you to pick your friend or the stranger to be killed next, who would you (and everyone else) pick?
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
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: Ped]
#2908192 - 07/20/04 11:15 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ped said: If self-interest were our first nature, we would be unable to change that trait in ourselves. Because we are able to train ourselves to become less self-centred -- eventually completely other-centred -- it must be true that self-centredness is not an inherent aspect of our being. If self-interest were our first nature, we would be perfectly harmonious with this part of ourselves. Because the world is filled with suffering and conflict which has it's root in self-centredness, it must be true that self-centeredness is something layered overtop of what we actually are. Simply because the self-first attitude is so deeply ingrained that it is almost instinctual does not necessarily indicate that the trait is either unchangeable nor natural. Simply because the habit of self-cherishing permeates much of our motivation now does not mean we are supposed to be this way, or that we forever bound to continue this way.
Ped's debate rule #5: Always address points raised in your opponent's post with suggestions other than those already argued. >> If a terrorist held you, a friend and a politically unimportant stranger as hostages and asked you to pick your friend or the stranger to be killed next, who would you (and everyone else) pick? What if I told you that I would pick myself? I cannot claim that I would in such a situation, but if it came over the newswire that someone in such a situation chose himself to die over his comrades, even strangers, what would this mean to you? If selfishness were inherent in our nature, we would not be able to refuse the selfish instinct. If it's true that no human being has the capacity to choose the welfare of others before himself, what does this tell us about free will?
--------------------
Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace
Edited by Ped (07/20/04 11:26 AM)
|
DoctorJ


Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Rhizoid]
#2908228 - 07/20/04 11:25 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
yay!!!
Rhizoid is back!!!
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Ped]
#2908256 - 07/20/04 11:33 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
If you refused to pick as the terrorist instructed you, all three of you would be killed instantly.
Nice side-step on the one and hyper-jump over the other two questions which get right to the HEART of the matter. It is impossible to continue this discussion without blanket honesty. Of course, if you are afraid of what you might discover then keep playing the avoidance game.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
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: Swami]
#2908407 - 07/20/04 12:23 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Here again are the points I raised for you, Swami: 1. If primary selfishness is inherent in our nature, we would not have the ability to change. We have the ability to change the selfish habit. Therfore primary self-interest is not an inherent aspect of our nature. 2. If primary selfishness is inherent in our nature, we would be perfectly harmonious with this part of ourselves. Because humanity throughout history has been unable to reconcile self-interest and happiness, our self-interest is a source of disharmony and is therefore not inherent in our being. 3. If primary selfishness is inherent in our nature, then it must follow that a human being would not have the capacity to put others before himself, especially in highly charged situations. If the welfare of others is organized relative to the self, and this arrangement is to be permanently affixed in human behaviour, then no human being would have the ability to override those selfishly motivated instincts. Since human beings possess free will, they have the ability to override those instincts. Therefore primary self-interest is not an inherent aspect of our being, and is instead a learned behaviour, like the skill of walking. What you have been suggesting here, Swami, is that primary self-interest is an inherent aspect of our being simply because we do it all the time. I speak English all the time, and have been doing so since I can remember. All of my thoughts are in English. Everything I express verbally is done so in English. It has always been this way for me. Does this mean that I was born English, that the English language is inherent in my being? Of course it does not. Can I learn another language? Yes. Can I refrain from speaking English and instead speak only the new language? Yes. It might also be helpful to point out that some people who learn languages other than their native tongue end up forgetting their first language entirely. Can I learn unselfish behaviour? Yes. Can I unlearn selfish behaviour? Yes. If selfish behaviour were inherent in my humanity and not a transistory part of my person, how is it that I can accomplish these things? >> Who here dates another that they cannot stand to be around? Nobody would choose to be around someone who bothers them. This does not identify human beings as innately selfish, because our being bothered by others is optional. The bother occurs within the person who is bothered. It does not emanate like radiation from the person who appears bothersome. Because this is true, the person who appears bothersome cannot be inherently annoying. Acknowledging this, the person who is bothered can apply effort in seeing good qualities in the seemingly bothersome person, eventually overcoming the idea that they are inherently bothersome and recognizing them as valuable human beings who are to be cherished. Since the annoyance occured within the mind of the person who was annoyed, it is within the annoyed person's freedom to choose an alternative feeling toward the other person. Because we do not often do this indicates that we are habitually selfish. It does not indicate that we innately selfish. The fact that we have the ability to make this choice means that we are not innately selfish. >> Who here has a best friend from whom they get nothing in return from? One can befriend another without the expectation to receive topical benefits. Since the expectation to receive benefits from the other person originates and is sustained entirely within the mind of the person feeling that expectation, it is within that person's ability to recognize the illnecessity of that expecation and instead choose to explore the good qualities in the other person, seeking reasons to cherish them simply for being a human being with the same wishes for happiness as they. Because we do not often do this indicates that we are habitually selfish. It does not indicate that we are innately selfish. The fact that we have the ability to make this choice means that we are not innately selfish. If anything, these two examples indicate that laziness is another bad habit found in human beings. The reason we don't make the choice to oppose our feelings of expectation (attachment) and annoyance (anger), or any of our other afflictive habits, has to do with it being so much easier simply to hate or become angry, or to distance ourself from other people. Since we equate ease with happiness, we are naturally drawn to the path of least resistence. Neither hatred nor anger make us happy, however. In fact, they take away our happiness and replace it with suffering. >> If a terrorist held you, a friend and a politically unimportant stranger as hostages and asked you to pick your friend or the stranger to be killed next, who would you (and everyone else) pick? >> If you refused to pick as the terrorist instructed you, all three of you would be killed instantly. What you are attempting to do with this is corner me into admitting that it is not possbile for me to be unselfish in this impossible situation. The dynamics of this situation, though, are irrelevant. It does not matter whether I choose the stranger or the long-time companion. Much more important is the motivation behind who I chose, because the motivation is what's part of purely internal circumstance. If I happened to choose the stranger, it does not necessarily indicate that I did so because I feel less akin to him than I did to the person who is my long-time comrade. If prior to this incident I had taken the time and effort to cultivate a mind of equanimity -- that is, the mind that views all living beings as equally worth of happiness and peace -- I might take other factors into consideration. Of these two unfortunate people, whose death would mean the most suffering for others? If my friend's family had all since passed away, and he had no wife or children, it might make sense in this impossible situation to select him to die over the stranger who, in fear, expressed that he wished to be home with his children. The point here is that it's my choice to approach this situation selfishly or unselfishly. Because most people on the earth would choose the selfish avenue indicates that we are habitually selfish. It does not indicate that we are innately selfish. The fact that we have the ability to approach this situation unselfishly indicates that we are not innately selfish beings, and indeed have the capacity to become unselfish. All we must do is understand why it is so important. It is a hopeful bit of reality. I agree with you, Swami, when you remind us that primary self-interest is indeed absolutely pervasive in us as individuals and as a society. I also agree that recognizing this fact and accepting it is much more helpful than fleeing from it. I completely disagree, however, when you suggest that selfishness is a permanent fixture in human beings, that it is somehow natural to follow our selfish tendencies into the innumerable and often unbearable troubles they bring us.
--------------------
Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace
Edited by Ped (07/20/04 12:40 PM)
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Ped]
#2908556 - 07/20/04 01:02 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Nobody would choose to be around someone who bothers them Ah, progress. So we choose to be around others who please us (self-interest).
Oops, no answer on the best friend question. Will try again, do you get ANYHTING in return from your best friend; yes or no? (Note: we can get to the deeper discussion once we get past the basic questions).
that it is somehow natural to follow our selfish tendencies... ALL creatures follow their selfish tendencies; even those that form symbiotic realtionships only do so to gain more than they could alone. This is as "natural" as one can get. Name one creature besides your alleged super-human that does not.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
kaiowas
lest we baguette


Registered: 07/14/03
Posts: 5,501
Loc: oz
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Swami]
#2908602 - 07/20/04 01:20 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I would say it's a cross between swami and ped's ideas. cause it's like, you need that self interest part of you especially in your younger years for survival. this isn't taught to us, or at least it isn't a conscious decision made by a baby to cry when it needs to be changed, or fed, or whatever.
At the same point, not all of our actions are going to be selfish either. being selfish requires that you are concerned of yourself, regardless of others. I have put others before myself plenty of times expecting nothing in return.
This can clearly be displayed with weed smoking. I don't know about you swami, but there are plenty of potheads my age around here that will smoke you out for no other reason but to smoke with someone who wants weed. It's like a "I've been there before and it really sucks" kinda thing.
saying selfishness can't be changed is like saying compassion for humans doesn't exist. why? cause the root of compassion is putting others in front of oneself.
-------------------- 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.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: kaiowas]
#2908693 - 07/20/04 01:46 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Mother Teresa: "The more you have, the more you are occupied, the less you give. But the less you have the more free you are. Poverty for us is a freedom. It is not mortification, a penance. It is joyful freedom. There is no television here, no this, no that. But we are perfectly happy."
She gives of herself BECAUSE IT MAKES HER HAPPY. She did it for the personal satisfaction and reward. This is self-interest!
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
kaiowas
lest we baguette


Registered: 07/14/03
Posts: 5,501
Loc: oz
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Swami]
#2908697 - 07/20/04 01:48 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
agreed that it's self interest, that's different than being selfish!
please continue
-------------------- 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.
|
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: Swami]
#2908702 - 07/20/04 01:49 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
>> She gives of herself BECAUSE IT MAKES HER HAPPY. She did it for the personal satisfaction and reward. This is self-interest! This was Anton LaVey's philosophy. If one pursues concern for others only for the cause of making themselves happy and satisfied, they will not develop concern for others because they are motivated primarily by self-interest. They will be reduced to petty and egoistic self-congratulation for their unselfish behaviour. Ballooning one's pride in this way produces temporary happiness and long-term suffering. A genuinely unselfish mindset is what produces genuine happiness and relief. If motivated only by the pursuit of one's own happiness and relief, one is fundamentally obstructed and cannot develop genuinely unselfish attitudes. To derrive authentic happiness from unselfish behaviour, one must have an authentic understanding of why others deserve our care and concern. You may have the victory, Swami. I am withdrawing from this debate.
--------------------
Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace
Edited by Ped (07/20/04 02:07 PM)
|
kaiowas
lest we baguette


Registered: 07/14/03
Posts: 5,501
Loc: oz
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Ped]
#2908960 - 07/20/04 02:55 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
do you think swami there is a huge difference between self interest and being selfish? I do
-------------------- 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.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: kaiowas]
#2909014 - 07/20/04 03:05 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Why not elaborate first?
I think there is a huge difference between intelligent self-interest and retarded self-interest.
Retarded self-interest: (Most) Every country spending 10-20% of their gross national product on the the military.
Intelligent self-interest: Every country disbanding their military and cooperating with others and saving 10-20% of their gross national to increase the wealth and welfare of it's citizens.
Too utopian? Let's take another more down-to-earth example:
Goal: I want to get to the other side of town as quickly as possible.
Retarded self-interest: I run red lights and stop signs and speed like a demon. I selfishly disobey the agreed-upon rules.
Intelligent self-interest: I obey traffic signals and go slighty faster than usual. I am aware that a traffic accident will cost me money, physical harm and time and a speeding ticket will also cost me time and money, so I selfishly obey the agreed-upon rules.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Swami]
#2909066 - 07/20/04 03:17 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
And I really think, cockroaches, ants, or bacteriums are mostly a lot more moral then humans. Not to mention the 'higher' animals with low 'self-consciousness'. Why should moral allways do the opposite of instinct ?
|
kaiowas
lest we baguette


Registered: 07/14/03
Posts: 5,501
Loc: oz
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Swami]
#2909102 - 07/20/04 03:24 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
"to increase the wealth and welfare of it's citizens."
this is where I draw the line between self interest and selfishness. since you are increasing the wealth of the citizens, and that's the goal, then it isn't selfish at all. in fat I am having a hard time finding self interest here.
-------------------- 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.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: kaiowas]
#2909211 - 07/20/04 03:49 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
If you are my neighbor and we are always fighting because your dog shat on my lawn, and I decide to kick down your fence and then you cut down my tree and then I pour dye in your swimming pool... It is a lose-lose situation. So we make peace - we cooperate for our self-interest: our monetary and emotional well-being.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
GGmaster
PsychedelicSociopath
Registered: 10/14/05
Posts: 24
Last seen: 17 years, 10 months
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Swami]
#4844965 - 10/24/05 09:28 AM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I mentioned this one in another string but I think it applies here too:
Morality applies definitions of "good" and "right" to decide if something is moral (i.e., the 10 commandments). Without ethics (defining what is "good" and "right") we cannot make a moral judgement. So we can say that an action is a good action if it is done out of good will and with good intentions.
-------------------- "Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results" - Albert Einstein
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: GGmaster]
#4845881 - 10/24/05 01:51 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
(wow I was alive one year before )
"So we can say that an action is a good action if it is done out of good will and with good intentions." No, sorrowly not. For the most evil dictatorships, that statement will be true, too. Their 'goodwill' only was for a smaller part of the population.
|
Deviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: BlueCoyote]
#4851699 - 10/25/05 07:37 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
swami, youre misunderstanding what morality means. when you help others you are helping yourself. in other words, being moral is your own highest self interest and as mother teresa confirms, leads to great happiness. selfish and unselfish are not defined the way youre making them out to be. for example if you choose to make dinner for a sick person instead of watching tv that would be defined as selfless behavior, even if you did it because you find happiness in helping others. and isn't that how it should be? as long as you don't expect anything in return except your own happiness you are acting selflessly. however if you only did it because you wanted to be seen as a good person then it would be selfish. so in both instances you are acting in a way that promotes self interest but one is moral and one is immoral.
|
Deviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: The Nonsense of Morality [Re: Nomad]
#4851762 - 10/25/05 07:54 PM (18 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Nomad said: 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.
no you would not. have you ever met a happy junkie? i tried to make myself happy with drugs and it was a miserable failure and i realized i was happier before i began using drugs then i was when i was using drugs. as buddha would say heroin is only different levels of samsara. you feel much suffering and then there is releaf when you get your heroin shot. how is this happiness? it only lasts a few hours, then you feel nauseas, weak and sick. taking more heroin only leads to diminished highs and more sick feelings. eventually your drug stops getting you high at all and then youre really screwed. this is not happiness.
|
|