Tao and Morality

[strawdog65]

Hello everyone!

 

I just happened upon this interesting webpage that

has the below conversation between a moralist

and a Taoist.

 

http://www.skepticfiles.org/mys5/taomoral.htm

 

It is quite enlightening in the comparison of values

and how we look at morality in our everyday existence.

 

There has been much talk about Taoism and morality

here at TTB, and I thought this would be a good platform

from which to begin a discussion.

 

Lets hear those comments......

 

 

=======================================

 

 

The Tao Is Silent, by Raymond M. Smullyan

Chapter 21, Taoism Versus Morality

 

 

 

The Tao Is Silent, by Raymond M. Smullyan

Chapter 21, Taoism Versus Morality

 

MORALIST: I must say, I am intensely disturbed by the way the world is

going from bad to worse. All objective moral standards seem to be

disappearing. Nowadays, everyone is talking in terms of what's right for me

or right for you or right for him--never what it really right in itself. All

moral judgements--they say--reduce ultimately to purely subjective tastes and

preferences. So with the disappearance of any objective code of morality, it

is no wonder that civilization is rapidly going to its destruction!

 

TAOIST: Then you are talking to the right man. I happen to be one of those

who do believe--and strongly--in objective moral standards.

 

MORALIST: Really! How wonderful! You have no idea what a relief it is to

meet the likes of you in these amoral times. Are you also interested in the

logic of ethics? Have you ever considered, for example, the question of

whether ethics is finitely axiomizable?

 

TAOIST: I don't think I follow you.

 

MORALIST: I mean, can all of ethics be derived from a finite number of

assumptions--ethical axioms--or are an infinite number of such axiomatic

principles required?

 

TAOIST: Oh, a finite number, definately! Indeed, only a very small finite

number--one, to be exact! All of ethics can be reduced to just one

principle.

 

MORALIST (eagerly): And what is this principle--the Golden Rule, perhaps?

 

TAOIST: Oh no! My principle is far more basic. It is simply that everyone

has the right to do whatever he wants!

 

MORALIST (after a moment of dazed silence): Oh, my God! Never in my life

have I been so foully, so brutally deceived! Here I was prepared to give you

all my trust, to accept you as a fellow Moralist, and you come out with the

monstrous sentiment--not an amoral sentiment--but positively the most

ANTImoral sentiment I have ever heard! You will excuse me that I am still in

a slight state of shock!

 

TAOIST: I do not see this sentiment as antimoral at all.

 

MORALIST: Of course it is! In the first place, the idea of everybody doing

whatever he wants would, of course, lead to anarchy.

 

TAOIST: Oh, not at all! If the people want laws, they have a perfect right

to pass them. The criminal has a perfect right to break them, the police

have a perfect right to arrest him, the judge has a perfect right to sentence

him to jail, and so on.

 

MORALIST: Now wait a minute, you're playing a sophistical trick on me! If

the criminal had the right to break the laws (which of course he doesn't),

then the police would not have the right to arrest him.

 

TAOIST: Why not?

 

MORALIST: Because obviously, if a person has the right to do something,

then no one else has the right to stop him or punish him for what he has

done.

 

TAOIST: But that obviously cannot be true, since I just told you that

anyone has the right to do anything.

 

MORALIST: Then you are obviously using the word "right" in a way which is

totally meaningless. According to any conceivable notion of "right," if a

person has the right to do something, then no one has the right to stop him.

 

TAOIST: But that is not true. According to the notion of right to which I

adhere, your statement is simply false, since two different people can want

to do conflicting things.

 

MORALIST: Then you are being inconsistent. There simply is no possible

interpretation of the word "right" according to which everybody has the right

to do exactly what he wants.

 

TAOIST: I will grant that according to your concept of "right" it is

obviously false that everyone has the right to do what he wants. However it

is not the case that under no interpretation of "right" is it true that

everyone has the right to do what he wants.

 

MORALIST: There is no such interpretation!

 

TAOIST: There most certainly is.

 

MORALIST: There is not!

 

TAOIST: Would you care to bet on it?

 

MORALIST: With all my heart!

 

TAOIST: Then I'm afraid you would lose. Simply define as act to be right

if the doer of the act wants to do it. Under that definition, it is trivial

that one has the right to do what one wants.

 

MORALIST: Oh my God, what a cheap sophistical trick! You are playing silly

meaningless word games, giving purely abstract arguments which have nothing

to do with reality. Of course according to your purely ad hoc definition of

"right," what you say is trivially true. But who in his right mind would

accept such a horrible definition?

 

TAOIST: You raise several interesting points. In the first place, you did

not originally say that under no ACCEPTABLE definition of "right" can it be

true that one has the right to do whatever one wants, but that under no

definition was this the case. Therefore, I gave you some definition--albeit

possibly an unacceptable one--as a counterexample.

 

MORALIST: But that is exactly what I mean by playing word games! Why

should you give me such a definition, knowing full well that I would find it

most unacceptable?

 

TAOIST: In order to establish an extremely important point! Originally,

you were decrying the lack of objective moral standard. I am trying to show

you that it is now mere objectivity you want. Many, many different objective

definitions of "right" and "wrong" can be given, all of them perfectly

precise. But for you to accept one, it must pass your own purely subjective

standards.

 

MORALIST: Of course! So what?

 

TAOIST: Originally you were decrying subjectivity in morals, and I claim

that in the last analysis you are being no less subjective than those you

criticize. Of course subjective moralists are subjective, but they at least

have the honesty to admit it. My main criticism of so-called objective

moralists is that they are just as subjective as the subjective moralists,

only they don't realize it. They hide their subjectivity behind a cloak of

objectivity.

 

MORALIST: What about the objective moralist who believes in God? He

defines the good as concordance with God's will. Can there be anything

subjective about that?

 

TAOIST: Of course there is! Abstractly it might appear objective. The

only trouble is that one's choice of religion--the nature of the God one

believes in--is determined entirely by subjective attitudes. Hence, when

someone says, "You should do so and so, not because I feel you should, but

because God's morality demands it," then I feel strongly that he is hiding

his own purely subjective feelings behind a cloak of objectivity. Mind you,

I am not necessarily against subjectivity, provided it is honestly recognized

as such.

 

MORALIST: If I really wish to hide my subjectivity behind a facade of

objectivity, then according to you I have the perfect right to do so! After

all, you said I have the right to do whatever I want!

 

TAOIST: This is a silly attempt at a reductio ad absurdum argument, but I'm

glad you brought it up since it will serve perfectly to illustrate a point.

Of course you have the RIGHT to! I am not questioning that. But I don't

believe you really want to! I know you well enough to know that honesty is

one of your values. I do not believe that you are consciously or

deliberately hiding your subjectivity behind a mask of objectivity. You

don't know that you are doing this. And the only reason I am trying to

convince you is my absolute faith that once you recognize what you are doing,

you will no longer wish to continue doing it. You see, our main difference

is that I have far more faith in the essential goodness of human wants that

you do.

 

MORALIST: But really now, the statement that one has the right to do

whatever one wants! It is this word "whatever" that I find so disturbing.

Is not your statement honestly equivalent to the denial of morality

altogether?

 

TAOIST: Logically equivalent, possibly, yes. Psychologically equivalent,

certainly not! Most people are far more shocked by my statement than by a

mere denial of morality. Amoralists have been in existence long enough that

they are no longer a frightening novelty to moralists. So when an amoralist

denies the objective reality of morality, the moralist will certainly

disagree but still take it in stride. But when somebody comes along and

admits there is such a thing as right and wrong, and then proceeds to say

that anyone has the right to do whatever he wants, this seems not like

amorality but like a hideous perversion of morality!

 

MORALIST: True. Tell me, since you know your remark shocks people, why did

you make it?

 

TAOIST: Because again, I know you well enough to realize that you would not

want me to withhold the truth--or even what I believe to be the truth--just

in order to avoid giving you a shock.

 

MORALIST: But do you really believe it is the truth? Don't you find

anything dangerous in your statement? Don't you realize how it can be used

to justify the most horrible behavior imaginable?

 

TAOIST: I can well imagine how it might appear to, but I am much less

frightened than you that it actually will. Again, I feel that our main

temperamental difference is that I have far more confidence than you in the

fundamental goodness of human nature. Therefore I am less afraid than you of

people doing what they really want. Is there really so much difference

between my maxim and the well-known (and much more acceptable) saying "Love

God, and do as you will"?

 

MORALIST: I am afraid you are being unrealistic. You believe that man's

very instincts are good, whereas anyone who, instead of indulging in wishful

thinking, knows how things really are, knows that man's natural primitive

impulses are extremely dangerous unless checked by reason and morality. A

man who is all id is a menace to himself and society. The id must be

disciplined by the ego and superego to created a truly socialized being.

 

TAOIST: It seems to me that somewhere I have heard this before!

 

MORALIST: I am hardly claiming this to be original! The important thing is

that it is true.

 

TAOIST: To me, the more important thing is that it is false.

 

MORALIST: Are you not being a bit on the dogmatic side?

 

TAOIST: Of course! But no more than you are being.

 

MORALIST: Let us not quibble about this childish point! The thing is, how

do you know that the point of view I hold is false?

 

TAOIST: I do not claim to KNOW it; the issue is highly controversial. My

own experiences in life have led me to feel that the picture you describe is

quite wrong--the picture of the id as the wild, ferocious, dangerous beast,

and the superego as the avenging hero who holds the id in check. If I think

in these Freudian terms at all (which incidentally I usually don't), my

picture is rather the opposite; I see the poor maligned id as really of a

sweet and loving nature, but the superego, by chaining and torturing the id,

drives it to respond with counterhostility and then indeed sometimes to

commit acts of violence. Then the superego triumphantly laughs and says "See

what a vicious creature the id REALLY is! You see now why I have to keep it

in restraint? Just think how much more damage it would do if I didn't keep

it in check!" The situation is perfectly analagous to a man who does not

trust his dog and keeps him perpetually chained. The chaining process

obviously makes the dog vicious, and the man then says, "You see why such a

vicious dog has to be chained!"

 

MORALIST: We have discussed the id and superego. Where does the ego come

in all this?

 

TAOIST: That depends on the individual. Your ego is obviously on the side

of the superego; mine is on the side of the id.

 

MORALIST: Tell me honestly, why are we moralists such a threat? What do

you really have against us? Is it merely what you already said about our

hiding our subjectivity behind a cloak of objectivity?

 

TAOIST: No, it is far more than that! You may remember George Berkeley's

penetrating criticism of philosophers, "They first raise a dust, and then

complain that they cannot see." My criticism of moralists is very similar

though perhaps even more drastic. You recall that our whole conversation

started by your complaining about the increasing immorality in the world.

Most moralists are constantly complaining about the world's so-called

immoralities, but it is my sober contention that the moralists themselves are

the primary source of this trouble. They, more than any other group, cause

men to act immorally, despite the fact (or rather because of it!) that they

preach morality. They are causing the very trouble they decry.

 

MORALIST: This is honestly the most unfair accusation I have ever heard in

my life!

 

TAOIST: I'm sorry, but I must be honest. The situation is not without

parallel. One medical expert recently said that the greatest health hazard

of these times (next to cancer) is bad doctors. I am not qualified to say

whether or not this is true, but it wouldn't surprise me! I have also heard

that nineteenth century medicine has killed and sickened far more people than

it has saved. This is certainly most plausible! It is not out of the

question that economists may have been the prime cause of many of the world's

worst economic problems. Parents who go to psychiatrists sometimes find

out--to their utter horror--that they are the primary cause of their

children's juvenile delinquency and other neurotic problems. Psychiatry

itself has not been immune to a similar sort of attack. Some people feel

that psychiatry itself has been the major cause of the increasing neuroses of

our civilization, despite the fact that it has indeed helped a few

individuals. And so it seems that the phenomenon of "raising a dust and then

complaining that one cannot see" is hardly confined to the philosophers

alone. Why then should you moralists feel so immune from this criticism?

 

MORALIST: But all you have given me is analogies! You have not told me how

the moralists are causing the moral problems of the world.

 

TAOIST: I have already indicated this somewhat. Recall what I said about

the superego keeping the id chained up like a dog, thus causing the id to

become vicious, and then blaming the id as being initially vicious. Let me

now say more--and in less Freudian terms.

The key point to observe is that there is all the difference in the world

between being moralistic and being humane. I think the word "humane" is

central to our entire problem. You are pushing morality. I am encouraging

humanity. You are emphasizing "right and wrong," I am emphasizing the value

of natural love. I do not assert that it is logically impossible for a

person to be both moralistic and humane, but I have yet to meet one who is!

I don't believe in fact that there are any. My whole life experience has

clearly shown me that the two are inversely related to an extraordinary

degree. I have never yet met a moralist who is a really kind person. I have

never met a truly kind and humane person who is a moralist. And no wonder!

Morality and humaneness are completely antithetical in spirit.

 

MORALIST: I'm not sure that I really understand your use of the word

"humane," and above all, I am totally puzzled as to why you should regard it

as antithetical to morality.

 

TAOIST: A humane person is one who is simply kind, sympathetic, and loving.

He does not believe that he SHOULD be so, or that it is his "duty" to be so;

he just simply is. He treats his neighbor well not because it is the "right

thing to do," but because he feels like it. He feels like it out of sympathy

or empathy--out of simple human feeling. So if a person is humane, what does

he need morality for? Why should a person be told that he should do

something which he wants to do anyway?

 

MORALIST: Oh, I see what you're talking about; you're talking about saints!

Of course, in a world full of saints, moralists would no longer be

needed--any more than doctors would be needed in a world full of healthy

people. But the unfortunate reality is that the world is not full of saints.

Of everybody were what you call "humane," things would be fine. But most

people are fundamentally not so nice. They don't love their neighbor; at the

first opporunity they will explot their neighbor for their own selfish ends.

That's why we moralists are necessary to keep them in check.

 

TAOIST: To keep them in check! How perfectly said! And do you succeed in

keeping them in check?

 

MORALIST: I don't say that we always succeed, but we try our best. After

all, you can't blame a doctor for failing to keep a plague in check if he

conscientiously does everything he can. We moralists are not gods, and we

cannot guarantee our efforts will succeed. All we can do is tell people they

SHOULD be more humane, we can't force them to. After all, people have free

wills.

 

TAOIST: And it has never once occurred to you that what in fact you are

doing is making people less humane rather than more humane?

 

MORALIST: Of course not, what a horrible thing to say! Don't we explicitly

tell people that they should be MORE humane?

 

TAOIST: Exactly! And that is precisely the trouble. What makes you think

that telling one that one should be humane or that it is one's "duty" to be

humane is likely to influence one to be more humane? It seems to me, it

would tend to have the opposite effect. What you are trying to do is to

command love. And love, like a precious flower, will only wither at any

attempt to force it. My whole criticism of you is to the effect that you are

trying to force that which can thrive only if it is not forced. That's what

I mean when I say that you moralists are creating the very problems about

which you complain.

 

MORALIST: No, no, you don't understand! I am not command people to love

each other. I know as well as you do that love cannot be commanded. I

realize it would be a beautiful world if everyone loved one another so much

that morality would not be necessary at all, but the hard facts of life are

that we don't live in such a world. Therefore morality is necessary. But I

am not commanding one to love one's neighbor--I know that is impossible.

What I command is: even though you don't love your neighbor all that much,

it is your duty to treat him right anyhow. I am a realist.

 

TAOIST: And I say you are not a realist. I say that right treatment or

fairness or truthfulness or duty or obligation can no more be successfully

commanded than love.

 

Even Jesus, in his more enlightened moments, realized the profound

significance of this point. His attitude towards harlots and sinners was not

"Shame on you, you are contempible! I cannot love and accept you the way you

are. If you want my love and acceptance you must first change." No, his

whole attitude was "I love you and understand you perfectly, and I understand

why you sin. I love you and accept you as you are now. Since I love you, I

hope FOR YOUR SAKE that you stop sinning because I know your sinning is

making you unhappy."

 

MORALIST: You are a fine one to interpret Jesus! Do you think Jesus would

ever have said, "Everyone has the right to do whatever he wants"?

 

TAOIST: No, I do not believe he would. But in the context in which I said

it, my motives were to the same effect. I was knocking down morality insofar

as it goes counter to true humanity.

 

MORALIST: But why must morality go counter to humanity? Do we not preach

humanity?

 

TAOIST: We've been through this before. My whole point is that humaneness

cannot be preached. Preaching is just the thing to destroy it. I'm afraid

you still don't get my central point.

 

Let me quote you another Christian source. In "Christian Ethics," by Waldo

each and H. Richard Neibuhr occurs the following wonderful passage about St.

Paul:

In a sense Paul's whole thought on the law may be

interpreted as a development of Jesus' idea that a

good tree brings forth good fruit and that no

amount of external conduct can make men really

good. In so far as the imperative moral law

remains something external to man, an affair of

"You ought" and "You ought not," it cannot make

him good at the core; it cannot transform his

motives. The imperative form of the law, not its

content, is a relative thing which presupposes the

presence in man of a desire contrary to the

intention of the law. Moreover, the giving of

injuctions to men is likely to arouse their

self-will and so tempt them to transgress the law.

Where there are imperatives, adults as well as

children are tempted to see how close they can

come to the edge of the forbidden. Again,

imperative law cannot produce that innate,

unforced graciousness of conduct evident in Jesus

Christ which is so much more attractive and so

much more fruitful than self-conscious goodness.

 

I find this passage most remarkable! It expresses my ethical philosophy

better than anything I have said. This represents a vein of Christianity

which to my utter amazement is not well known to many practicing Christians.

 

MORALIST: I'm glad you said "a vein of Christianity" because it is hardly

the whole of Christianity. To identify the whole doctrine with this one

thread would be most misleading.

 

TAOIST: Yes, I realize this, unfortunately.

 

MORALIST: Why do you say unfortunately?

 

TAOIST: Because I find it painful to have to reject any religion--even

atheism. I wish I could accept them all even though they all contradict one

another. Each is a composite of many strains, some good, some bad, some

indifferent. The best I can do is to pick the finest veins of each and

synthesize them as well as I can. In particular, the above passage on Saint

Paul emphasizes just that aspect of Christianity which I love.

 

MORALIST: Of course! You pick just that aspect which suits your purpose.

You keep making the same mistake over and over again. Consider the last line

of the passage you read: "Again, imperative law cannot produce that innate,

enforced graciousness of conduct evident in Jesus Christ which is so much

more attractive and so much more fruitful than self-conscious goodness."

This is fine for beings like Christ, but I wish you would get it through your

head that you and I are not Jesus Christ. We are human beings whose natures

are partly good and partly evil. Of course the spontaneous goodness of

Christ is more attractive and fruitful that self-conscious goodness. Yes,

that is fine for Jesus Christ, but we are not Jesus Christ. We mortals have

to learn the hard way. Even though spontaneous goodness is better than

self-conscious goodness, self-conscious goodness is better than no goodness

at all. And since most mortals can learn goodness only in a self-conscious

way, at least at first, that's the way it unfortunately has to be.

 

I think the following considerations may be helpful here. Kant made a

significant distinction between what he called a "good will" and a "holy

will." A man with a good will is attracted to duty and virtue for their own

wake, but that does not mean that he does not have base or ignoble impulses.

However, by virtue of his good will, he overcomes his less worthy natural

impulses by disciplin and self-denial. It is a painful process, but he has

the character to overcome this pain. Now a person with a holy will would

have no desire to do a wrong act in the first place. HE has no evil desires

to overcome, for he has no evil desires at all. So, for example, a man with

a good will may have a desire to steal from his neighbor, but he will

overcome his temptation to do so because he knows it is wrong. The man with

a holy will will not even desire to steal from his neighbor.

 

TAOIST: Of the two, I prefer the holy will.

 

MORALIST: Naturally. So do I. The holy will is the greatest blessing one

can enjoy. But it is something which must be earned! What have you or I

done to deserve the privilege of having a holy will? A holy will belongs to

beings like God or Christ or angels or saints. We mortals are rarely if ever

born with a holy will; we are lucky enough if we have a good will. One must

first struggle through the stage of the good will and by a great effort of

discipline overcome one's baser impulses. Then one may be rewarded with a

holy will. But the holy will is the reward. Remember that!

 

TAOIST: I understand perfectly what you are saying. I just don't believe

it.

 

MORALIST: Of course you don't! That is your whole fallacy! You regard

goodness as something that grows spontaneously like a beautiful flower or a

tree. But it doesn't. Like other valuable things in life, it requires

deliberate cultivation. It requires sacrifice and discipline.

 

TAOIST: That is about the last thing in the world I believe!

 

MORALIST: It is your privilege to believe what you like. Nonetheless, what

I say is true--harsh as it may sound.

 

TAOIST: It certainly does sound harsh! It not only sounds harsh, it is

harsh! I'm glad you brought up the word "harsh" because I believe it is the

key to our entire conversation. Yes, my main criticism of moralists is that

they are too harsh. That's it exactly! Most moralists agree with me that

human kindness is ultimately the most valuable thing of all. But our methods

are as different as night and day. I think that my entire ethical philosophy

can be paraphrased in one brief sentence: "Kindness cannot be taught by

harshness--not by any amount of harshness." I think this is what I have

struggling to tell you all along. To attempt to teach kindness by harsh

measures is like the proverbial war to end all wars. Harshness only

encourages harshness; it never encourages kindness. I believe this is the

central message of Christianity. It certainly is the central ethical message

of Taoism. The Christian passage I just read you on Saint Paul can be

summarized in the following single sentence of Laotse. When chiding

Confucious for his "morality," Lao-tse said, "Gove up all this advertizing of

goodness and duty, and people will regain love of their fellows." That is my

philosophy in a nutshell! Give up advertizing goodness and duty, and people

will indeed regain love of their fellows.

 

MORALIST (after a pause): I did not realize you were this strongly

Taoistic. I'm afraid it is then rather hopeless for me to convince you of

the necessity of the sterner more heroic virtues of life like duty,

discipline, and sacrifice. I am indeed a moralist in the true Western style,

and my views are truly dualistic. But this duality is something quite real,

not something of my own making, as Taoists would claim. There really is a

conflict between duty and inclination, and to simply close one's eyes to it

does not make it vanish, it only leaves it unresolved. But as I have said, I

have little hope that you will see this.

 

It is now getting late, and we must soon part. There is one last thing I

must clear up which is still sorely bothering me. I cannot reconcile your

change of attitude as this conversation has progressed. You started out with

this monstrous statement "Anybody has the right to do whatever he wants," and

then as the conversation developed, you spoke more and more of the virtues of

humaneness, kindness, sympathy, empathy and love. Now, although I regard all

your ideas of spontaneous goodness, gracious unself-conscious virtue, and so

on as childishly unrealistic, I nevertheless realize that your motives are

admirable. How then can you possibly reconcile all this with your original

horrid statement? Please be really honest with me and tell me absolutely

truthfully, do you really believe that anyone has the right to do whatever he

wants, or were you merely being provocative?

 

TAOIST (laughing): In a way I was being provocative, and in a way I meant

it. I didn't realize this statement was still bugging you! Look, let me put

it this way. The statement itself isolated from any context is not one I

would say I believe, nor is it the statement I would normally make. But it

does make sense in certain contexts. I would make the statement "everyone

has the right to do what he wants" only to people who I feel are overly

moralistic. I then make the statement only to counterbalance what I believe

to be unfortunate tendencies in the opposite direction. I am particularly

apt to say this to moralists who are overly strict with themselves rather

than others. All I am REALLY trying to say to them is, "I wish you would let

yourself alone and stop beating yourself on the head; I believe you would be

better off." That's all I really mean by "Everybody has the right to do

whatever he wants." Perhaps a still better way of conveying my real message

is to say that if one believes he has the right to do what he wants, then he

is more likely to want to do what is right.

[Aaron]

Hello Strawdog,

 

I'm not sure if I would consider this a Taoist attitude. I argued the same thing elsewhere and the majority of Taoists tend to follow along the lines of the Moralist. I would say this is more in tune with the anarchist attitude. With that said, Taoism has a long history of valuing morality and virtue. Most traditional Taoist in China would probably be equally shocked if they heard what Smullyan advocated (perhaps even a bit angry that he is presenting it as Taoism). With that said, many Western 20th century Neo-Taoists tend to follow along the lines of Smullyan (me included) except I would also make the point that if one is raised in moralistic society, to view right and wrong, they can't simply forget what they've been taught and behave in a natural way without working towards returning to a natural way of behaving. This requires understanding one's self and realizing that the id, superego, and ego are merely constructs, much the same as our definition of who we are.

 

So to sum up my own thoughts, Taoism as a philosophy practiced by the majority of Taoists is very much a moralistic philosophy, in part because Taoism, as it's practiced by the majority of Taoists is also a religion that advocates actions that are outside of what's found in the basic texts we all know and love (the Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu to be exact). There are literally thousands of tracts that are a part of the Taoist religious cannon that dictate, not only what is right and wrong, but the consequences of doing something wrong (consequences handed down by the higher powers in fact).

 

If you want to discuss this in regards to strictly the philisophical principles of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, I would say that both of them have given the examples of the Sages as a means for us to understand what should be done, but leave it to ourselves to find out why it should be done.

 

As an afterthought, this isn't an actual conversation that's taking place, but rather a moral play.

 

Aaron

Edited January 10, 2011 by Twinner

[strawdog65]

[Birch]

I think "morality" only serves to cut one off from one's natural reactions to suffering.

What are one's "natural" reactions to suffering? Well, it's getting hard to say...

 

Why is it hard to say? As was mentioned, we grew up cut off from them.

 

Because we have suffered the pain of our own cutting off, we might in our turn argue that "humans" are "inherently" in need of "morality". A most circular argument if I ever saw one.

[King Kabalabhati]

I didn't read the long conversation, but there's a difference between "moral" and "moralism". Moral can be thought of as a kind of mixture of intelligence and compassion, the brain and the heart working together for the health of the individual and the community.. Awareness put to practice in the society.

 

Moralism as I understand is used as a means of elevating one's self above others. It serves no purpose in a Taoist's life.

[Jetsun]

Thanks for posting this Strawdog it's a really interesting exchange

 

TAOIST: I do not claim to KNOW it; the issue is highly controversial. My

own experiences in life have led me to feel that the picture you describe is

quite wrong--the picture of the id as the wild, ferocious, dangerous beast,

and the superego as the avenging hero who holds the id in check. If I think

in these Freudian terms at all (which incidentally I usually don't), my

picture is rather the opposite; I see the poor maligned id as really of a

sweet and loving nature, but the superego, by chaining and torturing the id,

drives it to respond with counterhostility and then indeed sometimes to

commit acts of violence. Then the superego triumphantly laughs and says "See

what a vicious creature the id REALLY is! You see now why I have to keep it

in restraint? Just think how much more damage it would do if I didn't keep

it in check!" The situation is perfectly analagous to a man who does not

trust his dog and keeps him perpetually chained. The chaining process

obviously makes the dog vicious, and the man then says, "You see why such a

vicious dog has to be chained!"

 

MORALIST: We have discussed the id and superego. Where does the ego come

in all this?

 

TAOIST: That depends on the individual. Your ego is obviously on the side

of the superego; mine is on the side of the id.

 

This is certainly my experience in life that by strengthening the superego through harsh morality you actually create what you are trying to avoid. What I have learned is that the only power that the superego has is repression and if all your hard work, discipline and morality serves is to strengthen the repression of the Id then you are on the fast road to suffering and blindness because all repression does is put things in darkness it never actually gets rid of things, it simply makes you unconscious of them and subsequently they come out in far more destructive and perverse ways than they should have, thus creating the monster you were trying to avoid.

 

Hello Strawdog,

 

I'm not sure if I would consider this a Taoist attitude. I argued the same thing elsewhere and the majority of Taoists tend to follow along the lines of the Moralist. I would say this is more in tune with the anarchist attitude.

 

I'm not sure I agree with you there, I don't think the Taoist is advocating anarchy he is saying he has faith in the natural goodness of people if they are allowed to develop and live naturally so there is no need for harsh morality, rather the morality comes as advice in that you are free to do whatever you like but if you do things like kill and steal you are more likely to suffer therefore it is wise for you not to do so.

 

I think you have to take into context who the Taoist is talking to as im sure he wouldn't say disciple and hard work is bad if the motivation behind it is becoming more in line with the Tao, but if your motivation behind your disciplined morality is because you feel that you "should" do it or that you have to out of a sense of guilt then it is no good for you and will bring you more out of line of the Tao, which will infact in the end make you less moral.

[strawdog65]

Hello Strawdog,

 

I'm not sure if I would consider this a Taoist attitude. I argued the same thing elsewhere and the majority of Taoists tend to follow along the lines of the Moralist. I would say this is more in tune with the anarchist attitude. With that said, Taoism has a long history of valuing morality and virtue. Most traditional Taoist in China would probably be equally shocked if they heard what Smullyan advocated (perhaps even a bit angry that he is presenting it as Taoism). With that said, many Western 20th century Neo-Taoists tend to follow along the lines of Smullyan (me included) except I would also make the point that if one is raised in moralistic society, to view right and wrong, they can't simply forget what they've been taught and behave in a natural way without working towards returning to a natural way of behaving. This requires understanding one's self and realizing that the id, superego, and ego are merely constructs, much the same as our definition of who we are.

 

So to sum up my own thoughts, Taoism as a philosophy practiced by the majority of Taoists is very much a moralistic philosophy, in part because Taoism, as it's practiced by the majority of Taoists is also a religion that advocates actions that are outside of what's found in the basic texts we all know and love (the Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu to be exact). There are literally thousands of tracts that are a part of the Taoist religious cannon that dictate, not only what is right and wrong, but the consequences of doing something wrong (consequences handed down by the higher powers in fact).

 

If you want to discuss this in regards to strictly the philisophical principles of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, I would say that both of them have given the examples of the Sages as a means for us to understand what should be done, but leave it to ourselves to find out why it should be done.

 

As an afterthought, this isn't an actual conversation that's taking place, but rather a moral play.

 

Aaron

 

 

Hi Aaron!

 

Thanks for the reply.

I just thought that this "play" covered some interesting ground that I thad

not seen on TTB and thought it would be good to stir up some conversation

of morality and it's relation to Taoism.

 

I myself do not engage in anything other then Taoism as a philosophical

means of life. The religious aspects are (to my understanding) something

that was put into place much after the first inklings of Tao thought concepts.

Being that the actual concepts of Tao pre-existed the TTC it is in this respect that

I would like to explore the aspect of morality. Without the religious thought

processes, just taking the Tao concept as it's naked whole, how would morality apply?

 

Since all actions/non-actions are within Tao, would not the concept of any

morality be a constructed, imposed set of values, only useful to the mind of Man?

Can morality be said to actually even exist?

Without the value system of man.... is the consideration of any kind of

morality even a sensical argument?

 

To me, Morality is a concept that has no actual proof of necessity, except to

us Humans. And only then as a means of controlling our attitudes and actions

within a given societal structure.

 

Otherwise... remove Human thought and value and there is NO morality.

 

There is no need for morality, what will be will be, because it would

be what was most natural to occur.

 

Do animals act in accordance to any perceivable moral code?

Or do they act in accordance to what they instinctively know is necessary

to their survival? It is because of the ability of the Human animal to conceptualize

right and wrong behavioral standards, that there exists what is called Morality.

It is our expectation for something to occur which is desirable to us to

take place that allows the sense of a moral structure to inhabit our lives.

 

 

There is no real "Thing" that is morality.

 

The thing inside of each of us that we call "morality" is nothing more

than what each of us, of our own understanding, put forth as "right" and "wrong"

behavior which is in fact nothing more than our own "judgment" of what is

only true from our own limited perspective. Morality is self serving judgment.

 

Which is why...the Tao treats all as strawdogs.

Tao is indifferent.

Man is not.

 

Peace!

Edited January 10, 2011 by strawdog65

[forestofclarity]

TTC 38:

 

Therefore, the Tao is lost, and then virtue

Virtue is lost, and then benevolence (kindness)

Benevolence (kindness) is lost, and then righteousness (justice)

Righteousness (justice) is lost, and then etiquette (ritual)

 

This describes the loss of true morality. We lose the Tao, then virtue, kindness, fairness, and then all we have are the empty rules.

 

However, to regain the Tao, we simply reverse the process. Allow morality to cultivate fairness, allow fairness to cultivate kindness, allow kindness to cultivate virtue, and allow virtue to lead back to the Tao.

 

In Buddhist teaching, the precepts are rules of practice. They are like training wheels that let you distinguish right and wrong until your practice catches up and you realize how to do the right thing naturally.

 

I think one sided morality comes when we focus on the outside world, and neglect the inner. Once we realize that other people are the same as we are, then we tend to be more fair, kind, and so forth.

 

So I think this dialogue, in the end, is too simplistic. It's not an either/or thing.

 

*TTC translated by Derek Lin

[strawdog65]

Thanks for posting this Strawdog it's a really interesting exchange

 

 

 

This is certainly my experience in life that by strengthening the superego through harsh morality you actually create what you are trying to avoid. What I have learned is that the only power that the superego has is repression and if all your hard work, discipline and morality serves is to strengthen the repression of the Id then you are on the fast road to suffering and blindness because all repression does is put things in darkness it never actually gets rid of things, it simply makes you unconscious of them and subsequently they come out in far more destructive and perverse ways than they should have, thus creating the monster you were trying to avoid.

 

 

 

I'm not sure I agree with you there, I don't think the Taoist is advocating anarchy he is saying he has faith in the natural goodness of people if they are allowed to develop and live naturally so there is no need for harsh morality, rather the morality comes as advice in that you are free to do whatever you like but if you do things like kill and steal you are more likely to suffer therefore it is wise for you not to do so.

 

I think you have to take into context who the Taoist is talking to as im sure he wouldn't say disciple and hard work is bad if the motivation behind it is becoming more in line with the Tao, but if your motivation behind your disciplined morality is because you feel that you "should" do it or that you have to out of a sense of guilt then it is no good for you and will bring you more out of line of the Tao, which will infact in the end make you less moral.

 

 

Hi Jetsun!

 

Thanks for your reply!

I have had a similar life experience, when morality is

imposed there is actually less opportunity to express what

is most natural compassion and love for others.

 

The Human animal is a most contrite being when caged.

Whether it be a physical cage of iron, or a cage constructed

of our thoughts to limit our actions.

 

I guess it centers on the whether people believe Humanity

is inherently "good" or "bad".

 

My own belief is complex, but I believe people are inherently

good, until the outside influence of desire and judgment

take hold and change what was at the beginning true Tao nature.

 

It is the result of life that we are always seeking to return

to our most simple state. The state of open awareness

before a time of judgment and separation from Tao.

The state of being an infinite child.

 

Peace!

[pennyofheaven]

Some excellent points made by the Taoist!

Edited January 11, 2011 by pennyofheaven

[pennyofheaven]

Some excellent points made by the Taoist!

Edited January 11, 2011 by pennyofheaven

[Marblehead]

Hi Strawdog,

 

Just to let you know, I wanted to stay out of this discussion but I have been reading all the posts. Nice topic!

[strawdog65]

Hi Strawdog,

 

Just to let you know, I wanted to stay out of this discussion but I have been reading all the posts. Nice topic!

 

 

Hi Marblehead!

 

Hey I was expecting you to have something more to say......

 

C'mon can I coax you to give an opinion on what your perceptions

of what Taoism and a supposed Morality have between them?

 

I have great respect for the ability of mankind to be compassionate

without the self imposed rules system of a false morality to ride

shotgun over us. The naturalness of a compassionate attitude

toward all life is less evident in our western materialistic, shallow

society, then in cultures that have little material goods, but are rich

beyond our understanding in the non-material goods of the

interconnectedness that is their lives, naturally..... because they

do not have the distractions of material wealth.

 

Desire and judgment ruin us.

 

 

lets hear your opinion Marbles......

[9th]

[Marblehead]

Hi 9th,

 

I agree with the description of compassion you presented above. I would like to suggest that, IMO, in order to be truely compassionate one must possess the trait of being empathetic. But not that we need to have already been in another man's shoes but rather we can experience the feeling of walking in their shoes.

 

Once we can experience empathy I think that compassion is just a few steps further down the road.

[9th]

Hi 9th,

 

I agree with the description of compassion you presented above. I would like to suggest that, IMO, in order to be truely compassionate one must possess the trait of being empathetic. But not that we need to have already been in another man's shoes but rather we can experience the feeling of walking in their shoes.

 

Once we can experience empathy I think that compassion is just a few steps further down the road.

 

Compassion is not a thought or opinion, or an external morality - it has infinite variety of manifestation. It is a natural force that flows between all things. If we are practitioners, we must realize that we are involved in a process which the ordinary person has not yet decided to undertake, and we must take responsibility for our decision because the process is not a trivial matter.

[Marblehead]

C'mon can I coax you to give an opinion on what your perceptions

of what Taoism and a supposed Morality have between them?

 

Okay. Let's see how this comes off.

 

Let me first point out that my roots can be said to be Nietzschian-Taoist. (Setting the stage.)

 

In my understanding the Sage is "beyond good and evil". That is to say that the Sage does not have a moral code. Rather he/she conducts themself in such a manner that their morality would never be questioned under normal circumstances. They do only what needs be done and nothing more or less. Then two, if nothing needs be done (or can be done) then nothing is done.

 

Morality is a human concept. We are the only animal (as far as I know) who have rules of conduct that reach beyond what is instinctually natural. And, of course, these rules vary between different cultures. As far as humanity as a whole goes, there really are no universal standards.

 

In the old days in China the Taoists complained of the Confucians that they were trying to change mans natural goodness with forced rules of conduct. And this is basically still a sound understanding, I think. Any time we have to force ourself to behave in a certain way we are straying from our true nature and there will be internal conflict and this will prevent us from being at peace with ourself.

 

There are those who claim that a new-born child has a natural goodness and that it is concerned only with its own well-being. If a new-born's needs are satisfied there is no reason for it to be anything but naturally good. This is being "beyond good and evil". That is, without moral consideration.

 

Now, a Taoist, believing that we do not need have moral codes to restrict our lives are not suggesting that we can do anything we want. No, I think this is not valid. We cannot do whatever we want, unless, of course, our wants are such that anything we did would be beyond anyone's moral judgements. Ah! What a condition of living! To be able to do anything you wanted to do, anyplace on this planet, and never be questioned and never offend anyone.

 

So, if we consider the condition of the new-born who's needs are satisfied, we Taoists should wish to re-establish such a condition of living in order to not have to follow the manufactured rules of conduct written up by others.

 

How do we do this? By lessening our ego and our desires. We should narrow our needs down to as few as possible. Once our needs are satisfied we lessen our ego and desires. We can return to that pure state where we will be "beyond good and evil".

[strawdog65]

Okay. Let's see how this comes off.

 

Let me first point out that my roots can be said to be Nietzschian-Taoist. (Setting the stage.)

 

In my understanding the Sage is "beyond good and evil". That is to say that the Sage does not have a moral code. Rather he/she conducts themself in such a manner that their morality would never be questioned under normal circumstances. They do only what needs be done and nothing more or less. Then two, if nothing needs be done (or can be done) then nothing is done.

 

Morality is a human concept. We are the only animal (as far as I know) who have rules of conduct that reach beyond what is instinctually natural. And, of course, these rules vary between different cultures. As far as humanity as a whole goes, there really are no universal standards.

 

In the old days in China the Taoists complained of the Confucians that they were trying to change mans natural goodness with forced rules of conduct. And this is basically still a sound understanding, I think. Any time we have to force ourself to behave in a certain way we are straying from our true nature and there will be internal conflict and this will prevent us from being at peace with ourself.

 

There are those who claim that a new-born child has a natural goodness and that it is concerned only with its own well-being. If a new-born's needs are satisfied there is no reason for it to be anything but naturally good. This is being "beyond good and evil". That is, without moral consideration.

 

Now, a Taoist, believing that we do not need have moral codes to restrict our lives are not suggesting that we can do anything we want. No, I think this is not valid. We cannot do whatever we want, unless, of course, our wants are such that anything we did would be beyond anyone's moral judgements. Ah! What a condition of living! To be able to do anything you wanted to do, anyplace on this planet, and never be questioned and never offend anyone.

 

So, if we consider the condition of the new-born who's needs are satisfied, we Taoists should wish to re-establish such a condition of living in order to not have to follow the manufactured rules of conduct written up by others.

 

How do we do this? By lessening our ego and our desires. We should narrow our needs down to as few as possible. Once our needs are satisfied we lessen our ego and desires. We can return to that pure state where we will be "beyond good and evil".

 

 

 

MH,

 

Thanks for putting it out there.

 

I knew you would have something entirely thoughtful to say.

 

I would like to say something about the condition of our lives and

needs being met.

 

I also believe this "needs being met" is he single largest stumbling

block in the way of Humanity being Humane without effort.

 

In my post about a future society, I brought up this subject in reference to a

resource based economy and how it would change how we live our lives as far

as how all people are treated.

 

The desire for "needs": food, shelter, safety, and I would also say education,

are what is necessary for all people to combat this feeling of not having the most

basic of needs met.

 

The world as we live in it presently is structured to create the disparity of people,

the have and have-nots. Plain and simple.

 

This is a manufactured reality in the sense that it does not need to be this way.

Greed is rampant, and desires will always exist as long as people do not have the

basic needs of their lives met. The concept of sharing is seemingly repugnant to the

western mindset.

 

This attitude flies in the face of the Taoist principle of knowing "when enough is enough",

then sharing of resources can be seen as what it is , a natural process when abundance is

the rule not a society based on created scarcity to create profit for the greedy few.

 

Marblehead, thanks for the great reply...I agree with what you have posted.

We all have to consciously work to be more selfless, and see our desires for

anything other than basic needs as the frivolous and selfish things they are.

 

 

Peace!

[strawdog65]

Compassion is not a thought or opinion, or an external morality - it has infinite variety of manifestation. It is a natural force that flows between all things. If we are practitioners, we must realize that we are involved in a process which the ordinary person has not yet decided to undertake, and we must take responsibility for our decision because the process is not a trivial matter.

 

Hi 9th!

 

I do agree with the first part of what you are saying, up to the point

where you are saying that compassion is a process that ordinary people

have not yet decided to undertake.

 

From my own experience, some of the most naturally compassionate

people are the ones others would consider the "dregs" of society.

 

The act of acquiring knowledge does not make compassion something

more easily attained just because of knowledge gained.

 

Many times those claiming attainment of anything(including knowledge)

are in fact the people in society that cause separation to manifest by their

judgment of others as not being as on the same level(as good) as themselves.

 

Compassion is a free flowing natural aspect of all humanity.

It is the separation and judgment that humans make in keeping

the world of have and have-not's a reality, that keeps compassion

from being expressed with no effort.

 

When all people of the world are treated equally, and all people

no longer need desire for the necessities of living life, then will

compassion be self evident and continuously flowing.

[Marblehead]

I also believe this "needs being met" is he single largest stumbling

block in the way of Humanity being Humane without effort.

 

Yep. I think that many of us, if not most of us, have confused our desires with our basic needs. And this is why so many people will never find peace and contentment (happiness).

[Otis]

MORALIST: Don't you realize how it can be used

to justify the most horrible behavior imaginable?

I wanted to address this specific fallacy, because I have seen it used in many actual debates, as well.

 

The moralist is taking on the role of the parent: I am looking out for what is best for humanity, by telling it what it should do.

 

From that same perspective: "do what comes naturally" is an abomination, because a parent can't imagine saying that to their child. "How do I keep control of the kid, if I've told them to trust themselves, rather than an outside authority?"

 

But this "justify behavior" argument only makes sense from that parental role.

 

If I stop being a parent, and instead, start being a child who is raising myself (which is what I am, after all), then the "justify behavior" argument has no merit. Why would I want or need to justify my behavior? I am not trying to please a "parent", either outside or inside of me.

 

It is this "internal parent" (i.e. the internalized moral voices) that I need to justify to, when I seek to break my internal moral rules. No moral rules, no justification.

 

If I am not holding on to an internal moralist, if I am seeking merely a clear path ahead of how to relate to the world, then I just find what works, and what doesn't work.

 

And it is easy to quickly see how indulging in "horrible behavior" is received by the world; not well. So I learn that the world relates better to me, when I am kinder and more gentle to it. Then I behave in a virtuous fashion, not because I'm supposed to, but because it is what works.

 

The more, however, I am split between authentic doer and internal moralist, the more justification and self-deception I will have to indulge in.

Edited January 11, 2011 by Otis

[Otis]

BTW, a great NPR science show, Radiolab, just had a show on the evolution of compassion and ethics:

http://www.radiolab.org/2010/dec/14/

[Easy]

MH wrote:

 

In my understanding the Sage is "beyond good and evil". That is to say that the Sage does not have a moral code. Rather he/she conducts themself in such a manner that their morality would never be questioned under normal circumstances. They do only what needs be done and nothing more or less. Then two, if nothing needs be done (or can be done) then nothing is done.

 

That statement in itself constitutes a moral code...

 

And then MH wrote:

 

So, if we consider the condition of the new-born who's needs are satisfied, we Taoists should wish to re-establish such a condition of living in order to not have to follow the manufactured rules of conduct written up by others.

 

...a statement that outlines another part of the MH Moral Code...

 

Which was followed by:

 

How do we do this? By lessening our ego and our desires. We should narrow our needs down to as few as possible. Once our needs are satisfied we lessen our ego and desires. We can return to that pure state where we will be "beyond good and evil".

 

...and here we have the ultimate MH moral code. Sagacity lives in self-contradiction, que no?

 

I prefer to look at it with the sentimentality that is implicit above cut away:

 

Anyone can do anything they want because that is what nature allows. (As the Taoist/Anarchist/Realist explained above.)

 

1. Morality is a broad based contract the same as legal codes and more individualized business agreements.

 

2. Legislation and business contract are obsolete the moment they are signed into enactment and moral codes are obsolete the moment they are concensualized because all three are based on compilations of the past. For 33 years my professions put me in daily contact with The Law and it did not take me long to realize that laws are a futile attempt to regulate the future by translating, interpreting and putting into judgment situations from the past, but like Carl Sandburg once wrote, "The past is a bucket of ashes."

 

3. Those of us who love to spend time there can certainly say that at the leading edge of the Moment of Now there is only chaos. And then back a bit there is only ashes--time incinerates instantly. The legal codes, the moral codes and the boilerplate contracts only draw diagrams in the ashes.(Incidentally, legal codes do, as do moral codes, establish a certain tenor of regulation; however this is not due to the general "law abiding" nature of most conscious civilians, but to an exceptionally low key level of mass hysteria that political scientists call, "the habit of obedience." As Louis XVI and Tzar Nicholas the Last found in their final hours, this habit is very temperamental and very frail. There is, come nut cutting time, an innate and instinctual wisdom in the masses.)

 

I have known only a few men (I was fathered and raised by one) who knew the natural sovereignty found only on the front edge of now. And there every one of them was a sovereign sage who knew they could do as they pleased--and hey wait! It was mostly compassion that pleased them.--and were fully willing to accept all responsibility and consequence of their acts. It is not surprising that almost all of these men were intelligent, grounded, squared away outlaws. And come some bad, nut cutting situation, I would rather be in the company of two of these men than an army of Little Goody Two Shoes who had subordinated their hearts and minds to some fundamentally mediocre code of right and wrong no matter how beyond the beyond it was of itself.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Easy

[Marblehead]

Hi Easy,

 

Nice response. Regretfully, I have no way of responding to what you have said. This is because there is no point here for me to argue.

 

One thing I know for sure is that the fewer laws a people have the fewer criminals there will be. This applies to moral laws as well.

 

I have no idea if we can go anywhere from here.

[pennyofheaven]

Hi 9th,

 

I agree with the description of compassion you presented above. I would like to suggest that, IMO, in order to be truely compassionate one must possess the trait of being empathetic. But not that we need to have already been in another man's shoes but rather we can experience the feeling of walking in their shoes.

 

Once we can experience empathy I think that compassion is just a few steps further down the road.

 

I agree with what you say.

 

Compassion is what naturally arises when one has empathy.

 

I tend to view empathy and compassion like a marriage. If empathy files for divorce from compassion. Compassion will complain and counter file (if thats a thing hehe) on the "no grounds for divorce" reasoning. Where ever empathy goes, compassion is sure to follow. Even when being ignored.

Edited January 12, 2011 by pennyofheaven