Are morals really any better then no morals?

[InfinityTruth]

I was playing a chess game and I noticed a difference in these two players that I was playing. With one I asked for a takeback because of a typo and I was given a takeback(And he could've checkmated me right there for that typo). The problem with that was that after that it was like I was bound to be being nice if he screwed up which totally fucked me over in the end.

 

I actually resigned and gave him the game at the end, and I would've won had I not made the type. Which sort of sucked in a way, but I just felt guilted into giving him the game because of the typo.

 

Anyway, I played someone new today and I made another typo and he didn't accept the takeback(Not trying to sound whiny here...lol...just part of the insight). It wasn't a checkmate, but I lost a piece. I was upset at first until I got an insight from it.

 

Throughout that game I didn't feel obliged in any way to serve him, and if he fucked up he was going to pay the price for sure. I also didn't have to worry about feeling bad about screwing him over if I got the chance because I know he would've done the same to me.

 

So the question is, do you think morals (guilt) are more binding then correct?

 

Would you rather be on a ship with a group of cutthroat pirates that you know will screw you over at first chance so you're free to do the same.

 

Or would you rather play the morals game and hope that the person you're dealing with will be 'moral?'

 

 

I would personally rather that I could screw people over without guilt of doing so knowing that they would do the same. That seems like morals in my opinion, so long as everyone is playing on the same field.

 

It's like it's less moral to give people morals. Because then you can screw them over because they're not playing on the same field as you.

Edited May 25, 2011 by InfinityTruth

[Maddie]

Well as for me I tend to lean towards "morals" (if you want to call them that), but with that being said, in the case of the "typo" guy, this was not a case of morals, for if you had held him to the rules it would have in no way at all been "immoral" of you. I believe the TTJ says something about labeling virtue as such makes immorality happen, or something along those lines. I think the point is that when "morals" are what society labels as such it actually creates immorality. Rather the TTJ talks about finding your true nature, which as the Buddha said is good, and then what society calls "morality" should just come naturally. But as far as holding someone to the rules, that is not immoral lol.

[Sloppy Zhang]

Hmm, great question!

 

I've been thinking about this a lot recently as well.

 

Recently I've been reflecting on what I think to be "good" or "bad", and I find that I check a lot of my behavior based on how other people will react, social conventions, and things like that. I'm not thinking about things like murder or theft (like a pirate, yaaarg). But things like you know, flipping someone off if they piss you off. Dumping chicks you really just don't care about. Tell people you don't like that you really don't want to hang out with them because you really just don't like them. Telling jokes and not giving a flying fuck about whether or not someone gets offended.

 

Many times I'm afraid of what people will think of me. Or of them trying to get revenge on me (the law doesn't look favorably on offing people because you don't want them to get back at you later on down the line ). Or telling everybody they meet that I'm a jerk, even though it's really just THEM that I act coldly towards. Or people getting offended and harassing me over something or another joke that I said.

 

The thing that gets me is that I'm powerless. I'm at the mercy of other people. I have to live with society. I have to check what I say, or else everyone will put poor old sloppy zhang on the "do not date list". Or they'll throw animal blood on me in the morning as I walk out the door because I told my baby seal joke ("So a baby seal walks into a club.") People will get their friends together and jump me if I flip them off (even if they did something to me first, like, say, cutting in line at the grocery store!).

 

So I wonder what I would do if I were king of the world. No rules but my own. Are there any inherently meritorious actions? Or is virtue dictated by convenience of society.

 

I don't really know.

 

I'd imagine it would be very un-fun to live amongst pirates, always wondering who is going to try and cut your throat in your sleep. As much as you can do what you want, so can others. Unless you had the power to absolutely guarantee that people keep their hands off of you, it won't be a cakewalk.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[imonous]

hehehe...i know this may sound cliche, but there are no such things as morals.

 

 

p.s. don't let the common folks in on this though

[goldisheavy]

You need to refine your question.

 

You are asking "are morals better then no morals?"

 

Instead you should ask something like:

 

"Are morals better for living together with others then no morals?"

 

Then ask:

 

"If you just want to get your way with minimum internal worry, are morals better than no morals?"

 

In other words, better for what? Under what circumstances?

 

It's really obvious, isn't it? Morals are binding and they work best when we all agree to the same binds. Morals also work well when 95% of us agree to the same binds, and the number of those who opt out is small, manageable, and relatively powerless in society.

 

The moral binds promote the group well-being at the expense of some personal freedom. For those of us who see ourselves not only as individuals, but as sentient beings, as part of the whole, that's not a bad tradeoff at all, and it's not a heavy burden.

 

But there are some of us who think we are completely separate and there is a hard separation between each individual, like a chasm that just can't be breached no matter what. Everyone is an island in this view. Everyone is forever alone. In this view, you only cooperate with the group if you can somehow gain a personal advantage. If not, then you can just screw the group over. Anything goes. In this state the morals would just get in the way, unless you found a way to cleverly manipulate group morals for your personal advantage.

 

Now, again, let's look at what happens when some people opt out of the moral binds. Let's assume a small number of people opt out. If 5 out of 100 people opt out, but those five simply go off on their own, they have no property, no influence, and they just become hermits, then no harm is done. But what happens if the 5 who opt out are the people like the 5 most powerful CEOs? Or how about 5 presidents of the 5 most powerful countries? In other words, when people in socially elevated and elite positions, people with huge wealth (wealth is power) begin to opt out of morals in small and big ways, then what happens? Is it still profitable for the rest of society to live in a self-bound way?

 

Food for thought.

Edited May 25, 2011 by goldisheavy

[InfinityTruth]

Change of opinion, I would agree that they probably are better for society (So suffering is less) to have morals. I was thinking so small with the game and not about murder and stuff like that. Even so though, with no morals you would adapt to it.

 

If nobody is agreeing to the binding then it's more of a curse.

 

It's especially critical that people in high positions have certain morals or the world goes to disharmony.

 

In fact, people in power should be tested for their character (I was going to say morals but I like character better) when getting high positions of power, instead of stupid rules like you have to be a certain age to be president. That proves nothing. More power should be given to those who don't do shit to fuck up the earth.

 

Wealth should be based on character to encourage responsibility.

 

Like you shouldn't be allowed to own a logging company unless you've proven you won't be a greedy motherfucker.

 

 

I really didn't see the point of morals until this post, but it's self evident they make society better. Lack of morals is the reason the planet is being slaughtered.

 

I actually see the point in some morals. I know I pulled U turn in this thread. lol. I seriously got to thinking about it though, and I learned something.

 

And people should be allowed to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't effect anyone else(or anything) in a negative way.

Edited May 25, 2011 by InfinityTruth

[goldisheavy]

I actually see the point insomemorals. I know I pulled a complete Uey in this thread. lol. I seriously got to thinking about it though, and I learned something.

 

I think you asked a very profound question. It's OK to make a U-ey or even 10 U-eys. I think you should still keep considering what you said.

 

My personal opinion is that morals are good when most people follow them and when people in power follow them. If 20% of people refuse to follow, or if 0.001% of people refuse, but that 0.001% is not just anybody, but people in power, then it no longer makes any sense to uphold your end of the morality bargain.

 

So yes, it's dramatically more important for people in power to be moral than for ordinary people to be moral. But does our society operate this way? I don't think so.

 

This is why I am firmly in the gray area now. I am mostly moral out of habit, but I no longer feel any need to be moral. I believe the social contract has been broken and I am off the hook now. The contract was not broken by some insignificant welfare moms or some petty crooks. It was broken by CEOs, by the Congressmen, President, by the billionaires, by the Wall Streeters and so on. As of now, I am absolutely under no moral obligation whatsoever to anyone.

 

But is that really good? No, I don't think so. I would much rather enjoy if we could all be more moral. But if the power players check out, then I am checking out as well. That's my personal take.

 

Morals to be fair must be a fair contract that benefits if not everyone, then most. Otherwise when the so-called "work ethic" is just used to enrich the CEOs and owners, and when those same CEOs push the governments to make tilted laws that favor huge established companies and punish upstarts and regular citizens, then what is that? How is that a good deal? The contract is broken.

[Sloppy Zhang]

In fact, people in power should be tested for their character (I was going to say morals but I like character better) when getting high positions of power, instead of stupid rules like you have to be a certain age to be president. That proves nothing. More power should be given to those who don't do shit to fuck up the earth.

 

Well it's interesting, the notion that we "give power" to someone, so that they may wield it over the populace.

 

I know that as for as our ideologically perfect democratic system goes, sure, we grant people the power to make decisions. But, again as far as the perfect ideology goes, those people do not have "power", per se, they are SERVANTS of the people who elected them. Perhaps we should begin using the word "public servant" more often. But not just politicians- cops and soldiers can fall under the category of public servants.

 

I'm not sure if the perfect ideologies ever existed, even in the founding of, say, the United States. But I think that people should remember that politicians should be loyal to the PEOPLE. Not a political party. Cops and soldiers are there to protect the PEOPLE. The President directs the nation in service to the PEOPLE.

 

Of course, somewhere along the line, "people" became defined as people with ridiculously large amounts of money.

 

Anyway, sorry for that pseudo rant. But I thought that your comment was interesting. Why do we have to give power away? Sure, we give up certain things (like our freedom to rape raid, pillage, and plunder our weasley black guts out) in order to live in society. But that is OUR choice. We our exercising our power to live peacefully. Since when do we have to give it away for someone else to make our decisions? No, we elect people so THEY can enact OUR designs.

[Otis]

Honestly, I think the issue of morals is a bit of a distraction. The only reason to talk about morals is in philosophical remove, as if talking about society could change it.

 

The only question that seems important to me is: how do I get along with my environment?

 

Oddly enough, it's not that different with the pirates, than with my New Age friends. Sure, I'll swear less around my sensitive friends, but be assured, I'm not going to insult the pirates, either. In each case, people want to be loved, to be valued, to be respected. That is my key to connecting to just about any group of people; the rest is jargon and style.

 

Even cut-throat pirates (or Wall Street brokers) have friends that they relax with, that they think they can trust. It's just a smaller circle of trust, then the one I have in the dance community. I prefer a larger circle of trust, because I don't enjoy being vigilant all the time.

 

IMO, "society is (adjective)" or "society should be (adjective)" are both delusions, and not worth holding on to. The only thing that I can control, is how I am meshing with my environment right now. And that, IME, is decided by my willingness to fit into my environment, instead of demanding that it fit me.

[goldisheavy]

The only question that seems important to me is: how do I get along with my environment?

 

That's a myopic question. A less myopic form of the same question is:

 

"how do I get along with my environment in a way that doesn't ruin the environment in the future?"

 

After all, burning and slashing allows you to "get along" with your environment.

 

So the morals are very much relevant. The fact that reasonable and good-hearted people like me are now forced to consider dropping morals is a tragedy. It's not something anyone should be celebrating at all. It means our society is on the verge of breakdown when even someone as kind and as relatively straight-laced as me is thinking that morality is no longer a good bargain.

 

Some people are just so overjoyed to drop morality. I just don't get it. Such people are ignorant fools in my view. They likely confuse religious bullshit morality with true morality. Just get some lube ready, because you have no idea of the implications of people starting to drop morality en-masse. It's not something you should be jumping up and down in joy about.

Edited May 25, 2011 by goldisheavy

[InfinityTruth]

 

IMO, "society is (adjective)" or "society should be (adjective)" are both delusions, and not worth holding on to. The only thing that I can control, is how I am meshing with my environment right now. And that, IME, is decided by my willingness to fit into my environment, instead of demanding that it fit me.

 

 

I hold a very similar opinion that I got from a buddhist saying, "The world is already perfect as it is."

[Otis]

Otis wrote: The only question that seems important to me is: how do I get along with my environment?

That's a myopic question. A less myopic form of the same question is:

 

"how do I get along with my environment in a way that doesn't ruin the environment in the future?"

 

After all, burning and slashing allows you to "get along" with your environment.

When I wrote: "get along" I meant as in: be friends with.

[doc benway]

I was playing a chess game and I noticed a difference in these two players that I was playing. With one I asked for a takeback because of a typo and I was given a takeback(And he could've checkmated me right there for that typo). The problem with that was that after that it was like I was bound to be being nice if he screwed up which totally fucked me over in the end.

 

I actually resigned and gave him the game at the end, and I would've won had I not made the type. Which sort of sucked in a way, but I just felt guilted into giving him the game because of the typo.

 

Anyway, I played someone new today and I made another typo and he didn't accept the takeback(Not trying to sound whiny here...lol...just part of the insight). It wasn't a checkmate, but I lost a piece. I was upset at first until I got an insight from it.

 

Throughout that game I didn't feel obliged in any way to serve him, and if he fucked up he was going to pay the price for sure. I also didn't have to worry about feeling bad about screwing him over if I got the chance because I know he would've done the same to me.

 

So the question is, do you think morals (guilt) are more binding then correct?

 

Would you rather be on a ship with a group of cutthroat pirates that you know will screw you over at first chance so you're free to do the same.

 

Or would you rather play the morals game and hope that the person you're dealing with will be 'moral?'

 

 

I would personally rather that I could screw people over without guilt of doing so knowing that they would do the same. That seems like morals in my opinion, so long as everyone is playing on the same field.

 

It's like it's less moral to give people morals. Because then you can screw them over because they're not playing on the same field as you.

I guess it depends on what your looking for out of life.

If you're looking to "win" or "get over" or are focused on your needs, desires, happiness, and so on... then the "cut-throat" method will work best for you. If you are looking to help others to achieve their goals, desires, and be happy, then the "moral" approach will be more effective.

 

It's also important to recognize that helping others is also a selfish undertaking. When I make myself happy, I am giving myself the pleasure of pleasing myself. When I help others, I am giving myself the pleasure of helping others. Both are ultimately done to satisfy my own need in some way.

 

Nevertheless, the "moral" approach works better when helping the other guy. And when (if) we have an insight into the connection underlying all of us, helping you really is helping me, and helping me is also helping me because we're both me. You're as much a "me" as I am. I just am limited to feeling my own skin and emotions but yours are just as real.

 

Ultimately, I feel that the "moral" approach is more pleasing to me for the most part, more of the time, currently, than the "cut-throat" approach. But I would be lying if I said that I follow one path exclusively.

[doc benway]

Honestly, I think the issue of morals is a bit of a distraction. The only reason to talk about morals is in philosophical remove, as if talking about society could change it.

 

The only question that seems important to me is: how do I get along with my environment?

 

Oddly enough, it's not that different with the pirates, than with my New Age friends. Sure, I'll swear less around my sensitive friends, but be assured, I'm not going to insult the pirates, either. In each case, people want to be loved, to be valued, to be respected. That is my key to connecting to just about any group of people; the rest is jargon and style.

 

Even cut-throat pirates (or Wall Street brokers) have friends that they relax with, that they think they can trust. It's just a smaller circle of trust, then the one I have in the dance community. I prefer a larger circle of trust, because I don't enjoy being vigilant all the time.

 

IMO, "society is (adjective)" or "society should be (adjective)" are both delusions, and not worth holding on to. The only thing that I can control, is how I am meshing with my environment right now. And that, IME, is decided by my willingness to fit into my environment, instead of demanding that it fit me.

Great post Otis

[doc benway]

That's a myopic question. A less myopic form of the same question is:

 

"how do I get along with my environment in a way that doesn't ruin the environment in the future?"

 

After all, burning and slashing allows you to "get along" with your environment.

 

So the morals are very much relevant. The fact that reasonable and good-hearted people like me are now forced to consider dropping morals is a tragedy. It's not something anyone should be celebrating at all. It means our society is on the verge of breakdown when even someone as kind and as relatively straight-laced as me is thinking that morality is no longer a good bargain.

 

Some people are just so overjoyed to drop morality. I just don't get it. Such people are ignorant fools in my view. They likely confuse religious bullshit morality with true morality. Just get some lube ready, because you have no idea of the implications of people starting to drop morality en-masse. It's not something you should be jumping up and down in joy about.

Hi Gold,

I would like to use your post as a jumping off point for what I feel are important considerations and a chance to pontificate (you know how I like that!)

 

Why do you/we feel forced to drop morality?

Why let anyone force us to do something that goes against our grain?

Who is doing the forcing?

Why should we give them that power over us?

 

We always have the ability to choose to give up or not give up that power and when we do we are like little monkeys on a leash, dancing at our masters command. They insult us or hurt us and we re-act based on their values rather than act according to our values. I know that there are many examples of when it is very tough not to do so but does it really have to be that way?

 

It's paradoxical - when we refuse to give up that power (ie act in a "moral" manner when others are treating us in an "immoral" manner) it appears on the surface that we are weak and the other is strong. But the truth is that learning to not give up that power over us creates enormous strength. The strength of the martyr, the strength of a Gandhi or a Mandela, the strength potentially to change the world. I know I'm aggrandizing a bit, but it really is terribly liberating.

 

So in a chess game, I give my opponent a second chance and he takes advantage of it. He refuses me similar consideration and I lose the game. What have I lost? A game of chess. What have I gained? The ability to return love for hate. That, my friend, is the power to save the world. What is the power to win without giving my opponent the same consideration they showed me? That is what is destroying us as you point out.

 

Can we be moral in the face of immorality?

Can we return love for hate?

I think this is what can rescue society from the breakdown you mention.

That is the message of Buddhism and Christianity and other traditions (maybe not the institutions but the scripture and intent).

 

It's certainly not easy and it's not new but then again, neither is the perception that society is corrupt and on the brink of collapse. It's particularly tough when I feel like I'm the only one trying and everyone is exploiting my good intentions.

Not sure I can do it consistently but lately I've been trying and it seems to work.

Is it worth the effort?

Can it be successful in the long run? On a large scale?

I don't know but I think it's worthy of consideration.

The ideal (ie Buddhist and Christian doctrines of metta and love) always gives way to human nature but is it possible for human nature to change?

The only way to know is to try, here and now, one step at a time.

[Aaron]

Hello Folks,

 

A few points. First pirates had morals. If you think you just killed someone because they looked at you the wrong way and nothing happened, you have another thing coming (which was pointed out, but perhaps not examined as closely as it should've been). The problem with society is that in order to have a society there must be rules in order to ensure that those people within that society can prosper (the actual purpose of there being a society in the first place). Now you might say morals aren't rules at all, but I think you'd be wrong. First morals are dictated by those around us. My friend was raised as a vegetarian and believes that killing animals for any reason is wrong. I remember he ran over a cat and I could see the sincere distress that it caused him. I met someone the other day who admitted that his dog killed any cat that came into his yard. It appalled me, but for him there was no moral qualms about it at all, because he saw nothing wrong in it.

 

Morals are subjective. Do they physically exist? Not in the sense that we can experience them with our senses, but they do exist so far as the society and we are concerned. They have a purpose and to say that it isn't a necessary purpose seems a bit presumptuous. I know that for several months I debated the need for morals, my argument being that man, if he/she follows their true nature, would behave in a way that is beneficial for each other without the need for moral guidelines. Lately I've had my doubts in this regard. Do I still believe man is naturally compassionate? Yes, but only towards those people they are invested in being compassionate towards. I don't think man is meant to be compassionate towards everyone, no more than I believe that man is meant to love everyone without having some reason to love them. The fact of the matter is we are skinwalkers, as Manitou likes to call it, and in being skinwalkers, we worry about the skin that is most valuable to us, our own.

 

Now can an enlightened being transcend the need for morality? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean he discounts or disregards morality or the laws of the land, rather he understand the nature of it all and has a little laugh over how seriously everyone seems to take it.

 

In the end we are better off understanding our connection to each other, and through this connection, knowing how our actions against others effects us. When we know this morality becomes obsolete, but until we learn it, it is very much a needed tool.

 

So to answer your question, yes morals are better than no morals.

 

Aaron

Edited May 26, 2011 by Twinner

[Birch]

I was playing a chess game and I noticed a difference in these two players that I was playing. With one I asked for a takeback because of a typo and I was given a takeback(And he could've checkmated me right there for that typo). The problem with that was that after that it was like I was bound to be being nice if he screwed up which totally fucked me over in the end.

 

I actually resigned and gave him the game at the end, and I would've won had I not made the type. Which sort of sucked in a way, but I just felt guilted into giving him the game because of the typo.

 

Anyway, I played someone new today and I made another typo and he didn't accept the takeback(Not trying to sound whiny here...lol...just part of the insight). It wasn't a checkmate, but I lost a piece. I was upset at first until I got an insight from it.

 

Throughout that game I didn't feel obliged in any way to serve him, and if he fucked up he was going to pay the price for sure. I also didn't have to worry about feeling bad about screwing him over if I got the chance because I know he would've done the same to me.

 

So the question is, do you think morals (guilt) are more binding then correct?

 

Would you rather be on a ship with a group of cutthroat pirates that you know will screw you over at first chance so you're free to do the same.

 

Or would you rather play the morals game and hope that the person you're dealing with will be 'moral?'

 

 

I would personally rather that I could screw people over without guilt of doing so knowing that they would do the same. That seems like morals in my opinion, so long as everyone is playing on the same field.

 

It's like it's less moral to give people morals. Because then you can screw them over because they're not playing on the same field as you.

 

I hear this kind of suggestion every time there has been an expectation that other people do what one would prefer they do and they haven't done it. Whatever it is. So we (I, one) might say "dang, had those people, that person only been trained better (maybe even as well as me!) then they wouldn't have done whatever thing they did.

 

I think this is what religions/societies have been trying to do for ages. I don't say this is "better" I often wonder what a person's 'morals" would be "naturally".

 

I think what is binding is both very personal and dependent on one's own sense of what feels right. I can imagine a person with no "guilty" feelings whatsoever. I don't know how that would play out. A psycho-socio-path, maybe?

 

Anyway, I figure from my own experience that my sense/feeling of what is "right" is either helped along or hindered by whatever the prevailing rules in society are (to the extent that I'll buy into it when other people "help" enforce them upon me)

 

But because I didn't grow up "free" per se. I can't say exactly what "no morals" would be like. A wonderful garden :-)

 

There's been some experiments on the kind of situation you mention in game theory I think. They were pretty interesting but IMO they didn't explain the morals at play in the society they were conducted in.