What is right and what is wrong?

Spirituality
#41

Moreover, if the moral relativity argument was true, there would be no such thing as karma. However, there most definitely is a law of cause and effect operating in the universe. Some immoral actions we reap punishment for there and then, others we get punishment much later on. For example, if I go and slap my boss on the face, there and then I will get punished - I will get sacked. If I go cheat on my spouse, there and then I will get punishment I will get hit by guilt and when the spouse finds out, risk losing that relationship. If I take an overdose of drugs, there and then I will get punished and I may even forfit my life.

Then there are actions that get punsihed much later on. If I spread gossip against my best friend, eventually that gossip will travel back to me and I will lose my friend or the trust of my friend. If I drink alcohol everyday, eventually it will come back to me and I will get ill or develop a life threatening disease.

There are subtle karmas we do not see but it clear they are there. Any person who harms another, first harms themselves. For a person to go out and murder or rape somebody they have to first have great emotional and mental suffering themselves, in order to be motivated to do such a thing. Then when they do it, they allow themselves to spiral into even greater self-destruction. The very moment anybody even contemplates doing something bad against another, they are infecting their mind.

Therefore there is such thing as objective morality.

#42

“However, there most definitely is a law of cause and effect operating in the universe. Some immoral actions we reap punishment for there and then, others we get punishment much later on”

This is more nonsense that you have managed to import into one’s mind. The word “karma” simply means action, and while certain causes create certain effects, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with morality. Morality is a projection of one’s own relative likes and dislikes of the mind, and depending on your likes and dislikes, you are going to have different ideas as to what is “right” and what is “wrong”. That is how a thousand and one different philosophies and belief systems have been born, all with their own hallucinations about the matter. What you like and appreciate, you are bound to raise high on a pedestal as though it is better than anything else. What you dislike, naturally you are going to interpret it as something which is to be avoided. But these are nothing more than your own prejudices which have prevented oneself from coming to a clarity of perception, from seeing things as they are. For that, a meditative consciousness is needed. A meditative consciousness is such, that whatever arises in the field of the senses, one is simply to remain a witness without becoming identified with anything whatsoever. Without clinging, neither liking nor disliking, neither raising a finger for or against, one can remain in the mind but not of the mind, in the world but not of the world. And this quality of remaining a witnessing consciousness from moment to moment is basically what determines whether one is suffering, or whether one is liberated from suffering. One suffers not because one has done “Good” or “bad”, but whether one is living out of consciousness or unconsciousness.

#43

Thomas,

"These things were just as wrong then as they are now.

Isn’t rape always wrong? If a cuture condoned rape, then that culture was wrong"

Because it sickens and disgusts your mind, you see it as wrong. This is none other than what you have been doing your whole life up till now, creating things in your own image. That is the nature of the mind, one cannot see anything else beyond it’s own subjective lenses.

#44

Surya,

"The golden rule is generally a good guide to moral behaviour. Do not do things to others that you don’t want done to you. "

This is more hallucination. It seems that the capacity to chase one’s own tail in circles les is inexhaustible. Depending on one’s own standards, this “golden rule” is not much of a golden rule at all. My standards may differ than yours. One may be a masochist who enjoys being abused by others, or one may not find what appear to others as acts of compassion, as compassionate at all. You have already assumed that everybody has the same fixed standard of perception. It is true that all beings are seeking happiness and freedom, but it is also the case that different minds are going to seek different means of fulfillment. How these means express themselves have largely to do with one’s conditioning.

#45

This is more nonsense that you have managed to import into one’s mind. The word “karma” simply means action, and while certain causes create certain effects, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with morality. Morality is a projection of one’s own relative likes and dislikes of the mind, and depending on your likes and dislikes, you are going to have different ideas as to what is “right” and what is “wrong”. That is how a thousand and one different philosophies and belief systems have been born, all with their own hallucinations about the matter.

What you speak of is only conditionally true of particular belief systems or human interpretations of morality. Yes, there are indeed cultures on this planet that practice cannibalism, but these cultures are few and far between. Most cultures on this planet universally condemn this practice. Although you say that morality is born from different belief systems, with their own imaginings, then why is it the case that there is more or less a consensus between cultures on basic wrongs like murder, rape, theft, aduletry and dishonesty? It is there is Hinduism, in Islam, in Christianity, in Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Taoism and Wicca. The very fact that these values are universal across cultures refutes the position that these are subjective imaginings, but rather points to a more deeper and common underlying truth about the human being. This points to an objective basis for moral judgements, which we will now investigate.

You admit that cause and effect does exist and certain actions do have certain effects. However, you claim it has nothing to do with morality. However, it was found in the examples I provided that certain actions did produce a certain outcome. For example slapping the boss - getting fired(maybe even prosecuted and a very bad reference) In that moment when I reflect on the action before it is about to take place I am making a moral judgement by saying to myself, “This action is bad, I should not do this” Similarly, in the example where I cheat on my spouse, I reflect before commiting the action and say to myself, “This action is bad, I should not do this” Again, making a moral judgement.

If we can start to identify general causes and their effects in the domain of human behaviour then we have objective morality. After 10,000 years of human experience(or at least of current humanity) we have come to generally agree what those actions are that should not be done - do not steal, do not lie and bear false witness/gossip, do no murder, do not be adulterous; and what those actions which should be done - be compassionate/loving, charitable, honest. This is a human consensus, not a consensus by any one particular culture.

The yamas and niyammas of Yoga comes the closest of all moral systems in the world to actual morality because it understands how the mind works and how karma works(The law of karma is a mental law) It realises that all suffering begins with attachment and when one is psychologically attached, it translates into destructive behaviour. So it prescribes morals that will reverse the effect of attachment. Such as do not be greedy and try to hoard wealth. Take as much as you need and distribute the rest for others. Remain content with whatever you have at any given time. Do not steal anything that does not belong to you(in thought, speech or action) Do not harm anybody, do not think lustful thoughts etc. These are the yamas and deal with your interaction with others. Then there are the niyamas which reverse attachment on a personal level - analyse yourself and study scriptures; be clean and serene; surrender to the moment etc.

I thus submit to you that morality can be objective. If you understand by that there are certain general actions which will have predictable good or bad outcomes and one who has this discriminative wisdom has morality. On the other hand, those who do not have this wisdom, have to interpret morality for themselves and like all human interpretations, it is tarnished by human impurity.

#46

yep thats the golden rectangle of ethics.but all ethics are dualistics.The state of yoga is beyond the pain provoke by the opposites.

#47

We got no choice but to think dualistically, because we humans are dualistic beings.

It is interesting how pain and pleasure is dualistic, and yet people who state this, talk of a third category that is beyond pain and pleasure. Now we have three things not one: pain, pleasure, and what is beyond pain and pleasure. This is not true non duality.

This is non duality: There is only pleasure and everything else is just the absence of pleasure.

#48

we can do anything we want.thats what Im targeting here.

#49

Ethics.are relative.the greatest ethic is the law of gravity.lol

#50

Surya,

“then why is it the case that there is more or less a consensus between cultures on basic wrongs like murder, rape, theft, aduletry and dishonesty? It is there is Hinduism, in Islam, in Christianity, in Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Taoism”

There is a consensus between most of the religions you have mentioned, not in that they have condemned things like murder, but they themselves have been the cause of much violence. In the case of Islam, it is not simply that there have been certain individuals who have been fanatics, but it is part of their religion. Muhammed himself managed to spread the whole Islamic empire through murder. When he was clearing out Saudi Arabia from the Jewish tribes, he personally beheaded more than 600 jews. As for the women which remained, they were taken as concubines. In the Quran it has been said that if you somehow cross paths with one who is not a Muslim, you are to kill him immediately. And, in fact, there can be nothing holier than dying in a war for the sake of God, such a person is immediately granted entry into paradise.

Certainly, for a man like Gautama Buddha, Muhammed can only appear as a monster. Jesus in the New Testament says that if you even look at a woman with desire, you have already committed sexual intercourse with her, in fact most of the religions have condemned sex before marriage. For certain tantric yogis, sex is not only absolutely natural, but it can be used as a skillful means towards one’s liberation. A Buddhist monk will not find this appealing, you have to remain celibate for your whole life.

For the Jain, it is a so called “sin” even to step on an ant, regardless of one’s intentions. For the Buddhist, it is not the case, one’s intention is considered to determine whether one’s action is to be considered “right” or “wrong”. For a man like Mahavira, the founder of the Jains, Gautama Buddha is living an absolutely immoral life - entangled in comfort and luxury. Because Gautama is wearing three pieces of clothing with his robe and can eat one meal a day, and for Mahavira, a real religious man has to live absolutely naked and fast for extended periods of time. Neither is it the case that there is no violence in various sects of Hindu religion. There have been many ancient scriptures which have been praising the practice of sacrificing animals in order to please their various gods and goddesses. For the Hindu, there may be nothing “wrong” about it. But for the Buddhist - such things are bound to be absolutely immoral, inhuman, and non-compassionate. For a Christian, it may be a sin to be dishonest. But for a Zen master, that is his very method of assisting the disciple towards his enlightenment - the master is not in the least bit interested in being “honest” or “truthful” - he is simply interested in almost any means whatsoever which will assist another towards one’s enlightenment.

Religions have never existed as something separate from philosophy. And like all philosophies, each has their own interpretation as to what is to be considered moral and what is to be considered immoral. These are none other than projections of one’s own mind. And just because there may be a few things which all have agreed upon, that does not make it the Truth. Truth is not a question of numbers, of how many people agree or disagree with certain ideas, it is not a popularity contest. In fact once one is awakened to the Truth, it completely shatters everything that one has assumed about existence up till now. All of one’s clinging to belief systems, ideas, and philosophies will be rendered irrelevant.

#51

“If you understand by that there are certain general actions which will have predictable good or bad outcomes”

Even if you live your whole life trying to commit all kinds of good deeds, one can only remain absolutely ignorant as to what is going to come out of it. Life is always in a state of flux, an unceasing stream of change. And it is impossible to know where the stream is going to move even in the next moment. What may appear to be a tragedy today may become a blessing tomorrow, and what may appear to be a blessing today may become a tragedy tomorrow. The difference between the so called “awakened” and the ordinary man is simply a matter of whether one can move with the stream consciously or unconsciously. If one is moving with it consciously, then at the most one can try to live this life as consciously as possible, but one is still as ignorant as the day one is born.

All of these ideas of “right” and “wrong” as absolutes have arisen because of one’s clinging to knowledge. And because knowledge is always incomplete, it is bound to always remain relative. In fact, it is not only knowledge which is relative, it is also the case with the physical universe itself. Time and space themselves are also relative. And your thoughts and knowledge are just part of time and space.

#52

All of these ideas of “right” and “wrong” as absolutes have arisen because of one’s clinging to knowledge. And because knowledge is always incomplete, it is bound to always remain relative.

So under what circumstances is rape or child molestation not wrong?

#53

Namaste Amir,

You have no dispute from me that different relgions and cultures have differences in their moral interpretations, but it is generally true that all cultures agree on the basic wrongs: murder, theft, adultery, rape, dishonesty.
Now it is often the case that these religions do not practice what they preach. As you have pointed out with the example of prophet Mohammed. However, the same Quran says “Let there be no compulsion in religion” “Be ready to forgive those who transgress against you” For the Muslim it prescribes living kindly and honestly, not commiting adultery and not being dishonest. Most Muslims you will talk to will say this is what a good muslim is.

The Hindu is taught the same general moral teachings: be kind and compassionate, be forgiving, do not commit adultery, murder, rape, theft etc. Very much as the Christian is. These are basic common sense morals, that even atheists share. Most people you talk to about morals will say do not rape, murder, cheat, lie, steal. So universal is this agreement it is law in most socieities in the world. This is not because of some popularity contest based on how many people agreed with a moral code authored by somebody, but independently almost every society on the planet has arrived at these basic wrongs.

This indicates something objective about morality which all societies discover for themselves. A very powerful phrase I read in a book I have says, “We do not invent the laws of nature, we discover them” Similarly, we discover moral laws. When you know a law, then you can make predictions based on that law. The most scientific study of morality has been done in Hinduism with the law of karma. The law of karma is a moral law that operates in the mind. If you have negativity in your mind, it produces negative mental states, which in turn leads to negative actions. The Hindus realised that what leads human beings to negative actions was attachments. The attachments consume us and corrupt our intellect, and with our intellect compromised, we no longer behave rationally. For example I am in love with this woman who does not love me back. I grow attached to this person, and hope that she will love me back some day. I feel a sense of lack and indequacy that she does not love me(Why not, what is wrong with me!) I start to get frustrated when it dawns on me she will not love me back. I get angry at myself and at her and my intellect become corrupt. I no longer act rationally - but I act emotionally. It is then I am in a condition to commit wrong actions - such as stalking her.
It is easy to see that behaviour like stalking another person comes from a mind in a negative state, not a positive one.

With experience we are able to identify the negative mental states and their associated mental behaviour. The Hindus identified 5 negative mental states(anger, lust, fear, jealousy, vanity) and associated with these are wrong actions like murder, gossip, hatred, theft, egoism. It is very easy to see that one who commits actions like rape and murder is somebody who is suffering immensely from negativity in their mind. A person who is positive, loving, brave, confident etc would not murder or rape somebody, because the cause for such is absent in them. This is how Hindus were able to arrive at a scientific and objective law of morality. They understood paap as action that brings defilement to the mind, and punya as action that gets rid of defilements and awakens virtues.

Thus morality is not just an opinion, but very much a law of nature. If you go against this law, nature will punish you, irrespective of whether you like it or not. One can escape human law, but definitely not the laws of nature. Nature punishes you there and then the moment you even consider acting out a negative action.

#54

Even if you live your whole life trying to commit all kinds of good deeds, one can only remain absolutely ignorant as to what is going to come out of it. Life is always in a state of flux, an unceasing stream of change. And it is impossible to know where the stream is going to move even in the next moment. What may appear to be a tragedy today may become a blessing tomorrow, and what may appear to be a blessing today may become a tragedy tomorrow. The difference between the so called “awakened” and the ordinary man is simply a matter of whether one can move with the stream consciously or unconsciously. If one is moving with it consciously, then at the most one can try to live this life as consciously as possible, but one is still as ignorant as the day one is born.

Is it really true that nature is a constant flux, unceasing stream of change, or is nature actually ordered and obeys actual laws that we can discover? Let us take the law of gravity for example, if this law was not true and subject to constant change, then nobody would build - say - roller coasters. I would never get on a roller coaster in my life in fear that gravity may stop working, and I will fall off or the tracks will collapse. Fortunately, the law of gravity is reliable and I do not fall off when I go on the roller coaster.

In fact, science has found the opposite to be true that nature is predictable and we can predict events in nature to the accuracy of a trillionth of a part. This conveniant fact of nature allows us to create technology - roller coasters, bridges, space shuttles, computers, television, lasers etc. Likewise, we have found in the science of psychology that human behaviour is also predictable.

A lot can be predicted by somebody by just assessing their behaviour, studying their speech patterns and thought patterns. In abnormal psychology we can identify abnormal behavioural traits and diagonose these people as abnormal i.e., in need of being treated. Of course it is not a perfect science, but generally we can make good predictions from this. Yoga psychology is just a more advanced version of this science.

It is easy to see that somebody who is a serial rapist, who sees in their rape victims their mother who abused them as a child is mentally ill. No normal person would behave like this, only a person who is suffering psychologically is capable of such actions.

#55

[QUOTE=thomas;44807]So under what circumstances is rape or child molestation not wrong?[/QUOTE]

No circumstances at all. Such behaviour can only come from a highly defiled mind. In this case a mind that has been overcome with lust. You will only be driven to rape somebody or molest a child, if you have pathological amount of lust in you.

If an animal is deprived of food for a long time, if you go near that animal during the time it is hungry, it may well attack you or try to eat you. Likewise, is you deprive a man of sex for a long time, if you go near that man during that time, he may well rape you. A lot of rape cases are commited by sexually frustrated men. There are other cases where the rape victim is beautiful, and the man knows that in ordinary circumstances she would not pay heed to him, so he rapes her.

Rape is not always about sex, but it is also about power. A husband rapes his wife not for sexual pleasure, but to dominate her and establish his power over her. A man rapes another man not for sexual pleasure, but to dominate the other man and establish his power. It was common, for example, in the Roman legions to rape their enemies to defeat them utterly. These are otherwise normal hetrosexual men.

Can you imagine Jesus or Buddha raping another human being? No, we cannot imagine that because they are saintly beings. The defilements that lead to such actions do not exist in them. So of course we should not be relative to people who commit these actions. We should punish people who commit those actions.

#56

[quote=Surya Deva;44827]It was common, for example, in the Roman legions to rape their enemies to defeat them utterly. These are otherwise normal hetrosexual men.
[/quote]

Hi Surya deva,

I have never read anything like that, could you mention sources for this statement ? Thanks.

Philippe

#57

I think what we learned form school is just our rick knowledge for work, but when we work wo could come into contact with many questions that we didn’t how to deal with, so I think rich experience is very important.

#58

Like I said before ethics are like the law of gravity .Only that illuminated by the common sense will be a guide and even that can be twisted I totally agree with Amir Mourad in here he seems to understand the concept of the absolute pretty (well the absolute is not something you can really grasp with vain words)however Amir is in the track. Muhammad and Jesus also spread a form of religion that brought lots of death and persecution to this world,and they where saints without doubt.Exactly become like a god and then come to said what is wright or wrong.Is all about levels.In other words if you are in elementary cant understand high school mathematics.

#59

Thats the concept inside a type of Tantra.

#60

Mohammed was no saint if you go by what the Hadiths record. Beheading people was one of his most common pass times.