Selective Morality

[Astral]

Not to bust in on your respective parades but here is the definition of moral according to Dictionary.com

mor·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (môrl, mr-)
adj.
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

n.
The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.

The large problem with this definition is that I is highly modifiable. Before you can really argue it, you must argue it on the same base!

PC morality
Tao De Ching morality
Social morality
Religious morality
are all different!

So lets define some of them.
PC morality… states that avoiding the issue and addressing it indirectly (beating around the bush) is a primary concern so that people are not offended!

Tao De Ching morality… Getting rid of the good gets rid of the evil logic. Ying-Yang logic, no light=no darkness, no good=no bad

Social morality… whatever makes you feel good that is generaly accepted

Religous morality… a code of conduct supposedly derived from a supreme authoritarian Entity!

This subject can never be agree upon. But I will offer my opinions to see what you guys think.

I view morals as absolutes. Something like self importance only gets in the way. In this fashion no matter what culture, law, or philosphy states something will be immoral and will never ever change from being that even if culture, law, or philosophy say otherwise!

By now you can tell that I am of the Religious morality type! I do not view it as +/- like the Tao does, I do not view it as flexible the way social and PC morality do either!

In an earlier post someone asked if it was moral to speed 5 miles over the limit or something of that nature. The problem with this question is that morals do not apply in this fashion. If a citizen does, one would be inclinded to say yes, if emergency personnell do then the compulsion would be to say no. Remember morals are absolutes in my view. There for the question is better phrased as… if a person speeds 5 over against the law, is it moral? In this fashion emergency vehicles may now get a pass because their exceeding of the speed limit is sometimes warranted!(this statement is with the assumption of citizens in an emergency are treated likewise).

So under the consideration that morals are absolutes we can tell there are circumstances where what is moral and what is not can change not by the action performed but the reason why the action is performed.

Another example is killing! Is it moral to kill? If one answers no they should not even be alive, because something has to die for you to live!

So the better question is… Is it moral to murder? Under that question we can all say that it is immoral to murder. Murder is killing but killing is not murder!

So based on a review of your posts… first decide what moral basis you would like to talk about. Otherwise you guys are performing an exercise in futility.

[Nick_A]

Hi Astral

So under the consideration that morals are absolutes we can tell there are circumstances where what is moral and what is not can change not by the action performed but the reason why the action is performed.

Welcome to the world of selective morality. As you can see both the persons able to determine the validity of these “reasons” and the reasons themselves are a source for a great deal of power and self justification.

[Nick_A]

Tent

I agree we are a process but this process can be either functioning better or worse in relation to its purpose at a given time.

Chp 71 addresses the issue succinctly. The wise person is aware of duality and doesn’t try to avoid it, but controls it. It is the statement of the difference of being awake and aware or simply being asleep.

You wish to control it while the ways of consciousness seek to experience it. It is a different approach.

The esoteric traditions asserts that we cannot find our awakeness? I find that to be a bold knowing. I disagree with that conclusion. I’ve hammered repeatedly on the knowing of not knowing, but that is only a partial view. We may know for ourselves through our experiencing, but we may not know for others. What I ‘know’ spiritually is mine and mine only. No matter how many words I throw at it, you will never know my spiritual understanding, because that understanding doesn’t exist in words.

It is not only bold knowing but demeaning as well. The knowing have to treat the sleeping as children and bribe them.

acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phal … otus1.html

Now, Sariputra, that man, on seeing the house from every side wrapt in a blaze by a great mass of fire, got afraid, and…calls to the boys: “Come, my children; the house is burning with a mass of fire; come, lest you be burnt in the mass fire, and come to grief and disaster,” But the ignorant boys do not heed the words of him who is their well-wisher; they are not afraid nor know the purport of the word “burning”; they run hither and thither, walk about, and repeatedly look at their father; all, because they are so ignorant.

…The man has a clear perception of their inclinations. Now these boys happen to have many and manifold toys to play with, pretty, nice, pleasant, dear, amusing, and precious. The man, knowing the disposition of the boys, says to them: “My children, your toys, which you are so loath to miss, which are so various and multifarious, [such as] bullock-carts, goat-carts, deer-carts, which are so pretty, nice, dear, and precious to you, have all been put by me outside the house-door for you to play with. Come, run our, leave the house; to each of you I shall give what he wants. Come soon, come out for the sake of these toys.” And the boys, on hearing the names mentioned of such playthings as they like and desire, quickly rush out from the burning house, with eager effort and great alacrity, one having no time to wait for the other, and pushing each other on the cry of "Who shall arrive first, the very first?’

One should consider the possibility that this so-called accelerated path is nothing more than projecting a construct - a reification of the very state of being one has supposedly left behind. I’ve made a statement several times in different posts that there is only being, not being as. It was politely ignored, but it is the difference that makes a difference. Being is. It is neither fast nor slow, above or below, or any other construct. Duality is a clever and demanding tyrant if one fails to understand and hold to this.

Here we just disagree. Of course it is a construct that a person is invited to verify. Maybe I’m wrong but I believe for you there is just being or non-being. For me there is an entire qualitative scale of being like a ladder of degrees of “isness” where one rung is above the one directly below and below the one directly above. It is our difference.

[tentative]

Astral,

Tao De Ching morality… Getting rid of the good gets rid of the evil logic. Ying-Yang logic, no light=no darkness, no good=no bad

I have no idea where your interpretation comes from, but I assure you, no one with any understanding of Way could possibly make this statement. Please check your sources. The statement is a complete misrepresentation of anything written in Tao Te Ching.

[Nick_A]

I imagine Astral is referring to the following. I can see how it can be confusing considering the first four lines as it relates to morality:

2. Abstraction

When beauty is abstracted
Then ugliness has been implied;
When good is abstracted
Then evil has been implied.

So alive and dead are abstracted from nature,
Difficult and easy abstracted from progress,
Long and short abstracted from contrast,
High and low abstracted from depth,
Song and speech abstracted from melody,
After and before abstracted from sequence.

The sage experiences without abstraction,
And accomplishes without action;
He accepts the ebb and flow of things,
Nurtures them, but does not own them,
And lives, but does not dwell.
[Chinese text]|[Go To Top]

[scythekain]

@tentative

Nick,

Some would suggest that there is no such thing as ‘morality’ that isn’t PC of the time in which it is engendered. Morality is social force of will and nothing more. Disparate groups, even whole cultures define what is moral - or not. Consider: Burning ‘heretics’ at the stake was considered both moral and doing God’s work as late as the 17th century. Slavery was considered moral in the U.S. 150 years ago. Indeed, the practice of slavery is still widely accepted as ‘moral’ in many parts of the world today. There may be such a thing as right and wrong, but they have nothing to do with morality. All morality is PC.

JT,

Would you not say that there is a social and moral obligation to help those stuck in disparate and immoral situations?

For example, the FGM going on in the Islam countries, do you think that it is moral because it is acceptable in their country? Remember that our cutlure used to think it was acceptable to burn heretics at the stake, after torturing them into confession.

Looking from the outside in, and seeing the historical mistakes of our own past, we have a moral obligation to help those trodding the same path.

Using the Yin Yang example, if we let “yang” do what it will without check, then yin becomes powerless and feeble. Yin must Challenge Yang. The borders of Yin and Yang are a contentious contrasting place. Without this contrast, there is no us, only them.

From another perspective; we know that there are activities and behavior that are patently dangerous to humanity, and to individuality. To say that they aren’t, because you can claim in some abstract way that “it doesn’t affect or hurt me or others”, is patently absurd, and basically saying that:

“There is no right or wrong”

There is no black or white only grey…

[Astral]

@tentative

Astral,

Tao De Ching morality… Getting rid of the good gets rid of the evil logic. Ying-Yang logic, no light=no darkness, no good=no bad

I have no idea where your interpretation comes from, but I assure you, no one with any understanding of Way could possibly make this statement. Please check your sources. The statement is a complete misrepresentation of anything written in Tao Te Ching.

This was posted earlier in the thread… A passage from the Tao De Ching.

Cut off sagacity and get rid of wisdom
And the benefit to the common people will be a hundredfold.
Cut off authoritative conduct and get rid of appropriateness
And the common people will return to filiality and parental
affection.
Cut off cleverness and get rid of personal profit
and there will be no more brigands and thieves.

The concept that that passage pretty much claims that in order to get rid of evil things you must first get rid of good things.

I would say otherwise and this thinking is foolishness at its core. Because of this passage I got the idea for making that post about the Tao De Ching.

I have not read any of the Book with exceptions to what you guys have posted. And going over these posts, I feel that my comparison is the point being conveyed by the passages.

This is only an assumption and I could easily be wrong. If you have more food for me I will be happy to learn more. I will admit that my comment might be unfair as I have posted it, but I only had what you posted to work with. So please do not take it as my heartfelt thoughts on the Tao De Ching… but more like an intial reaction.

[Astral]

@Nick_A

I imagine Astral is referring to the following. I can see how it can be confusing considering the first four lines as it relates to morality:

2. Abstraction

When beauty is abstracted
Then ugliness has been implied;
When good is abstracted
Then evil has been implied.

So alive and dead are abstracted from nature,
Difficult and easy abstracted from progress,
Long and short abstracted from contrast,
High and low abstracted from depth,
Song and speech abstracted from melody,
After and before abstracted from sequence.

The sage experiences without abstraction,
And accomplishes without action;
He accepts the ebb and flow of things,
Nurtures them, but does not own them,
And lives, but does not dwell.
[Chinese text]|[Go To Top]

Yes I would say that has a lot to do with my intepretations based on what I know thus far. As I stated in a previous post I have not read the complete text or any significant portion of the Tao De Ching to consider myself any form of authority. But based on what is posted thus far, I do get the idea that this Book is implying that Good and Evil are actually both evil and create contentions were as good should be tossed over board so that evil shall go with it and leave us with a gray area in life where which we can abound in peace and happiness!

I submit that once you toss the Good stuff over board you are only left with the bad… and trouble is not going away!

[Uccisore]

Scythekain:

Would you not say that there is a social and moral obligation to help those stuck in disparate and immoral situations?

Is relationship a factor here? For example, do I have a greater obligation to help my literal brother, sister, mother, cousin, best-friend and so on, moreso than some guy in China that I don’t know? Is there a point beyond which we have no obligation at all, or do we have at least a little obligation to everyone?

[Astral]

@Uccisore

Scythekain:

Would you not say that there is a social and moral obligation to help those stuck in disparate and immoral situations?

Is relationship a factor here? For example, do I have a greater obligation to help my literal brother, sister, mother, cousin, best-friend and so on, moreso than some guy in China that I don’t know? Is there a point beyond which we have no obligation at all, or do we have at least a little obligation to everyone?

Charity begins in the home! Your cup is limited. Do not spill it out for others before you pour a little for yourself and your loved ones!

In the best interest of all things, try not to apply the attributes of a God to mankind… we will do what we can and to expound on our shortcomings will condemn us to a life that is filled with it!

Help where you can and when you can… anything more is effort that will more than likely negatively impact what you are trying to achieve!

[tentative]

Hi MB,

Would you not say that there is a social and moral obligation to help those stuck in disparate and immoral situations?

I can see that one should be willing to help those who are suffering at the hands of others, but excuse me if I stay away from trying to define moral or immoral. Design any social construct you like, but saying this is moral and this is immoral requires a basis for saying that sort of thing. There are certainly benign social constructs, but call them what they are.

[scythekain]

@tentative

Hi MB,

Would you not say that there is a social and moral obligation to help those stuck in disparate and immoral situations?

I can see that one should be willing to help those who are suffering at the hands of others, but excuse me if I stay away from trying to define moral or immoral. Design any social construct you like, but saying this is moral and this is immoral requires a basis for saying that sort of thing. There are certainly benign social constructs, but call them what they are.

sure it’s a social construct. But it’s the best we’ve got right now.

[tentative]

MB,

OK. But if we’re looking to make social changes, then we need to use socially neutral concepts and words. Introduce words like morality and the religious extrememists of all religions pop up and there goes the neighborhood.

[scythekain]

@tentative

MB,

OK. But if we’re looking to make social changes, then we need to use socially neutral concepts and words. Introduce words like morality and the religious extrememists of all religions pop up and there goes the neighborhood.

how do you define “extremists” though? Is it someone devout that follows the “holy book” as moral law?

Or someone that presents contradicting moral construct to your own?

[Nick_A]

Astral

Yes I would say that has a lot to do with my intepretations based on what I know thus far. As I stated in a previous post I have not read the complete text or any significant portion of the Tao De Ching to consider myself any form of authority. But based on what is posted thus far, I do get the idea that this Book is implying that Good and Evil are actually both evil and create contentions were as good should be tossed over board so that evil shall go with it and leave us with a gray area in life where which we can abound in peace and happiness!

Actually this is a very profound idea but not for this thread. I’ll just touch on it since selective morality is man made while this is referring to objective human psychology. You can see how hard it becomes to agree upon man made ideas.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in Genesis caused death. This doesn’t make it evil but creates an implied distinction that does more harm than good so the sage avoids it and remains alive.

Paul refers to this in Romans 7:

7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “Do not covet.”[b] 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

I read this as Paul being alive in ignorance but died through the law that allowed him the ability to distinguish good and evil in relation to a higher life. Compensation for this death through ignorance is the higher life offered through Jesus sacrifice and its provision of the Holy spirit to enter into Man providing direction towards the good the law indicates.

So I do find a relationship between Genesis, Paul and that Tao excerpt in its perception of the Law, the objective morality associated with it, and its relation to human potential… However, it is easy to go wrong contemplating something so deep so I refuse to take a hard line position.

[tentative]

MB asks,

how do you define “extremists” though? Is it someone devout that follows the “holy book” as moral law?

Or someone that presents contradicting moral construct to your own?

What is moral to an individual can come from any source. But morality is only personal. The moment there is a difference between two or more people it is now just social engineering, with either negotiated settlement of differences or the more usual my gun is bigger than your gun.

If social progress is to be made, then avoiding morality as reason must be the guiding principle. There is little to be gained in compromise when ‘God is on our side’.

The extremist is that person who has no way of compromising…

[Astral]

@Nick_A

Actually this is a very profound idea but not for this thread. I’ll just touch on it since selective morality is man made while this is referring to objective human psychology. You can see how hard it becomes to agree upon man made ideas.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in Genesis caused death. This doesn’t make it evil but creates an implied distinction that does more harm than good so the sage avoids it and remains alive.

Yes man made ideas are hard to agree upon, I will agree with that statement.

about the sage avoiding the Tree of Knowledge. It is too late. Death has been brought down upon creation, and now the point of avoiding it will only continue to cause more harm.

One of Gods claims is that “My people perish for lack of knowledge”. If one chooses to avoid it, they will only succeed in failing themselves. The flesh that hangs upon you is that of sin and you cannot part from it until death!

Now about morality! This is unescapable! If we are to be judged this means that everyone knows what is good and evil. In fact that is the knowledge that the Tree of Knowledge brought about. One of the first things Adam and Eve realized after eating the apple is that they were naked and realized their shame. God had also asked “Who told you that you were naked?”

I never make a mistake about peopel who try to pass off this idea of moral relativity. Some things are wrong just plain and simple, yet people will try to hide from their own iniquity just as Adam and Eve tried to Hide from God! They try to hide their shame behind an elaborate cloud of lies! the concept of moral relativity is just one of the threads in this tapestry!

Long have the sinners sought to seek a refuge from the voice of God that is in their heads, to put their sins away and ignore them. Your conscience is not you, but God whom is talking to you! When you ignore your conscience, you come near being given over to a reprobate mind by God. If you perish while you have been given over to a reprobate mind there is no salvation.

[Nick_A]

Hi Astral

Now about morality! This is unescapable! If we are to be judged this means that everyone knows what is good and evil.

I never make a mistake about peopel who try to pass off this idea of moral relativity. Some things are wrong just plain and simple, yet people will try to hide from their own iniquity just as Adam and Eve tried to Hide from God!

I’m not trying to argue with you but to understand how you appreciate Romans 2 in this context.

biblegateway.com/passage/?se … version=31

1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

If this is true, what is the sense of condemning others?

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

This seems to me to be saying that if the law exists within you as a motivating attribute, a person is righteous even if unaware of the written law.

17Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; 18if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”

So don’t become an "expert. But the temptation of fame and fortune make this a tough one to avoid for people that have this charisma that allows it.

28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God.

So again there is caution about the relationship between the inner and outer man and that concern with appearance negates the entire esoteric or inner value of the perception of morality.

This is the great psychological damage of selective morality. It takes the inner experience of the unwary and distorts its value into secular approval of justified selective expression.

Good for the ego of the outer man but not good for the essence of the inner man.

[scythekain]

@tentative

MB asks,

how do you define “extremists” though? Is it someone devout that follows the “holy book” as moral law?

Or someone that presents contradicting moral construct to your own?

What is moral to an individual can come from any source. But morality is only personal. The moment there is a difference between two or more people it is now just social engineering, with either negotiated settlement of differences or the more usual my gun is bigger than your gun.

hey, let’s leave dick measuring out of this.

If social progress is to be made, then avoiding morality as reason must be the guiding principle. There is little to be gained in compromise when ‘God is on our side’.

would you rather god be on their side?

The extremist is that person who has no way of compromising…

Then the extremist will not be rational no matter what. Be it god on their side, or “science.”

[tentative]

Hey MB,

Then the extremist will not be rational no matter what. Be it god on their side, or “science.”

True enough. My point is that call it what it is and don’t pile irrationality on top of it.