Taoism and Moral Relativism: Are they mutually inclusive?

[Aaron]

So I've been reading a book that was given to me a long time ago, but since I thought I knew about the topic sufficiently, never bothered to read it. The book is Steven Lukes "Moral Relativism" and it discusses the concept of moral relativity and what it actually entails, rather than what most people believe it to be. It is an excellent book and quite eye opening.

 

What I started to think about, though, was whether or not Taoism is mutually inclusive with the concept of moral relativism and my answer was, at least in regards to Lao Tzu and most of what Chuang Tzu advocated, it is.

 

One particular point that is made in the book is in regards to cultural diversity and whether or not we need to tolerate another culture or instead have an equal respect for it (something that can also be used in respect to moral and religious relativism as well). I think Lao Tzu was not a relativist, how could he be, since he was advocating a moral ideology, hence the reason I ask whether or not Taoism and Moral Relativism are mutually inclusive, but I do believe that one aspect of Taoism most people miss is the need to tolerate others. Lao Tzu wasn't advocating equal respect however, in other words he believed his own ideology was superior, so equal respect was out of the question, rather he was advocating tolerance, allowing people to practice inferior ideologies in the hopes that peace would arise from it.

 

So I'm wondering if that can ever really occur, since tolerance itself is a bit demeaning. Tolerance says, "I'll let you do what you want to do, but I know in my heart my beliefs are superior to yours." This in essence is combative to the other person's culture or personal ideology. I wonder if perhaps what we should be thinking is that our personal beliefs are no more important than another person's beliefs and that ultimately we should have equal respect for their beliefs, not in the sense of tolerance, but rather that their beliefs are just as valid as ours because their perspective is as valid as ours.

 

With that said, perhaps the only way for us to truly go beyond good and evil is to dismiss the notion of moral superiority completely, to understand that our own perspective is only valid when put in the context of the community in which we live, that in order for each of us to surpass this notion of good and evil, then we must first get beyond the notion of individual and community, of mores and values, and instead begin to live life from a fresh notion. In essence we need to wipe the slate clean and begin to examine the world without the context of right or wrong, eh or oh, etc., etc., and instead look at each action from a relativistic point of view, one that examines the benefits and harm attributed to that action, not in a cultural or moral context, but within the context of the effects it has physically and emotionally on another individual. We should also understand that the effects of a single action can vary and we should not construe rules according to these actions based on the majority, but rather remember to make this judgement based on each individual circumstance.

 

Oh well, I went off topic a bit, but I will bring it around again and ask this question, "Is moral relativism what Lao Tzu was pointing towards, or was he firm in the notion that the ideals of the Tao Te Ching were all that were needed?"

 

Aaron

Edited November 3, 2012 by Aaron

[Marblehead]

Lao Tzu really didn't talk about morality all that much. I really think that he wasn't trying to instill any form of moral standards for the general population but rather did speak to the morality of the sage-king. I doubt that it was in any way suggesting relativity though.

 

A comment to where you went off topic, ie, mutual respect and tolerance. I will use the example of the Nazis. No, I cannot respect what they did and what they wished to accomplish nor would I have had any tolerance for what they did had I been directly involved in what was going on. So, IMO, respect and tolerance both have limits.

[GrandmasterP]

We can no more have a common morality than we can wear a collective overcoat. all morality is subjective and relative, just 'ossified tribal taboo'.

What we can have is a code of ethics that everyone; irrespective of their many and varied cultural moralities; can agree to abide by.

Morality divides... Those outsiders who do not do as we do can be derided as other than us and their ways immoral TTC is amoral in that respect speaking of 'fundamental trust' and that is never found amongst conflicting moral stances it only exists where those can be set aside for something better, higher and mutually acceptable to all parties. An ethical code.

[Aaron]

Lao Tzu really didn't talk about morality all that much. I really think that he wasn't trying to instill any form of moral standards for the general population but rather did speak to the morality of the sage-king. I doubt that it was in any way suggesting relativity though.

 

A comment to where you went off topic, ie, mutual respect and tolerance. I will use the example of the Nazis. No, I cannot respect what they did and what they wished to accomplish nor would I have had any tolerance for what they did had I been directly involved in what was going on. So, IMO, respect and tolerance both have limits.

 

Hmm... this is funny, I had a conversation regarding this topic with a friend earlier and the Nazis also came up. Now I would suggest that, as Luke mentions in his book, we are much more amenable to accept another cultures diversity when it is small and inconsequential, but it is much harder for us to do so when it affects us directly. Now with that said, you're misinterpreting tolerance, in that you seem to think it means accepting violence towards you or others, when that is a ridiculous notion, rather you accept that your own MORAL ideas are no more superior to another person's than one dog's bone is to another.

 

In regards to Lao Tzu being amoral, I'll touch base on that when I respond to Grandmaster P.

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

We can no more have a common morality than we can wear a collective overcoat. all morality is subjective and relative, just 'ossified tribal taboo'.

What we can have is a code of ethics that everyone; irrespective of their many and varied cultural moralities; can agree to abide by.

Morality divides... Those outsiders who do not do as we do can be derided as other than us and their ways immoral TTC is amoral in that respect speaking of 'fundamental trust' and that is never found amongst conflicting moral stances it only exists where those can be set aside for something better, higher and mutually acceptable to all parties. An ethical code.

 

Moral relativity doesn't say that we can (or should) have a common morality, in fact it's founding ideas are based on the notion that it's impossible to do so, rather it states we should respect each person's ideals and understand that the only thing that separates our own ideals from another's is our own unique perspective. As I mentioned in the last paragraph, I am advocating doing away with morality in lieu of ethics, so in that regard I am in agreement with you.

 

In regards to the TTC being amoral, that is hogwash. I'm surprised you missed that part of the text, because honestly it is staring anyone who reads it in the face. Virtue is morality, just as the good man is a moral man. Lao Tzu uses the sage as an example and though he doesn't tell us, he certainly advocates their behavior as being superior to others and in so doing he is advocating a morality. Again, virtue cannot be separated from morality, however he did believe that high virtue stemmed, not from human emotion, but rather the Tao itself, but again, I would expect that he would see that as a form of morality as well.

 

Aaron

[GrandmasterP]

Amoral as in transcending morality as 'ossified tribal taboo'. The ethical steer of TTC is far and above any societally limited moral code.

HTH

[GrandmasterP]

Take that...

Virtue is morality...

For example.

God is on the side of the virtuous warrior, say the priests to the soldiers on both sides of a conflict.

Nazis had chaplains telling them so as did the allies.

It's relative is morality Aaron.

Ethics trumps morality every time.

[Marblehead]

... you're misinterpreting tolerance, in that you seem to think it means accepting violence towards you or others, when that is a ridiculous notion, rather you accept that your own MORAL ideas are no more superior to another person's than one dog's bone is to another.

Aaron

No, not misinterpreting, just pointing to an extreme example.

 

And no, I cannot hold a drug dealer's moral values as being equal to mine. There are so many examples to this. I must suggest that there are limits to which I will offer respect and/or be tolerant of a gutter, dog eat dog, morality.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Marblehead

[XieJia]

never heard that De (Daoist's virtue) being equivalent to morality before.

Cultivating Dao is De; Dao need not be moral or ethical.

but a Moral or ethical thing might be within the Dao; do think that the Dao is wider.

[Aaron]

No, not misinterpreting, just pointing to an extreme example.

 

And no, I cannot hold a drug dealer's moral values as being equal to mine. There are so many examples to this. I must suggest that there are limits to which I will offer respect and/or be tolerant of a gutter, dog eat dog, morality.

 

Hmm... but what if you are the gutter dog? I think what you're failing to see is that your morality is only as precious to you as the gutter dog's is to him. If we continue to work along the lines of moral superiority, then how will we ever evolve out of the imperialistic state we are in now?

 

My morality is not worth anything, it is only a construct of the mind. Morality is only alive and well because of the perspective we've lived, but the life it lives is merely an illusion, rather than being a living thing, it is a tool we use to justify our actions. So, if I say the Nazi morality was no worse than the American, then that would be true, for to the Nazi the American morality is immoral and to the American the Nazi is at immoral. Morality is the framework in which we trap compassion and peace, keep it confined to our own liking. It is only when we can realize that our morality is no more superior to theirs that we can then see the fallacy that lies within it.

 

Morality is a trap. Of course that's what the Tao Te Ching is teaching as well, but it also states the actions one should take and the value of virtue. The problem is that so long as virtue is tied to morality it fails, that's why high virtue is held in high esteem and low virtue is seen as the first steps towards the downfall of man. Of course that's another topic entirely, which we've touched on. The virtue I talk about is the low virtue, which is also talked about in the Tao Te Ching. Failing High Virtue we resort to Low Virtue, and in so doing we allow ourselves to become trapped within the confines of morality. Now we come to Xie Jie's comment...

 

never heard that De (Daoist's virtue) being equivalent to morality before.

Cultivating Dao is De; Dao need not be moral or ethical.

but a Moral or ethical thing might be within the Dao; do think that the Dao is wider.

 

In this sense Xie Jie is right, however one cannot escape the various passages within the Tao Te Ching that direct us to right and wrong action, these passages are what I refer to when I talk about Morality. I believe Lao Tzu believed the path back to High Virtue was gained through work, and that in order to return to high virtue one must be virtuous. Is not the Good Man the Teacher of bad men and should not bad hold the Good men in high esteem? Is that not a moral tale if you've ever heard one? No sarcasm here, just a valid question.

 

Aaron

Edited November 4, 2012 by Aaron

[ChiDragon]

never heard that De (Daoist's virtue) being equivalent to morality before.

Cultivating Dao is De; Dao need not be moral or ethical.

but a Moral or ethical thing might be within the Dao; do think that the Dao is wider.

 

It seems that you have a good understanding of Taoist's De. Taoists follow the path of Nature was considered to be having the De of Tao(道德). You are very correct about morality that is inclusive within the cultivation of Taoism practice.

[de_paradise]

I think its just playing word games to differentiate moral, ethical, virtuous and de, etc, because they have this common denominator of being "right activity". When I was in college I pondered about cultural relativism as is relates to morals, so it was always on the back of my mind when I read these Taoists and Buddhists. It seem that they could not accurate.

 

Now as a practitioner, not just somebody who churns their logic, I have found that the answer is pretty simple, and something along the lines of Hume, except expanded to how energies interact. Hume talked about feelings, you know something is right if it feels right, and there are obviously cases that are hard to judge and need wisdom. But as a practioner, the only thing you need to worry about is if it feels right, and to follow that feeling, making it second nature to act out of goodness, or right activity. The splicing and dicing and extreme cases don't matter as much as your habits, that become your traits. What I am saying is that your energies interact with the universe mostly by dint of how you yourself feel about your actions.

[Aaron]

I think its just playing word games to differentiate moral, ethical, virtuous and de, etc, because they have this common denominator of being "right activity". When I was in college I pondered about cultural relativism as is relates to morals, so it was always on the back of my mind when I read these Taoists and Buddhists. It seem that they could not accurate.

 

Now as a practitioner, not just somebody who churns their logic, I have found that the answer is pretty simple, and something along the lines of Hume, except expanded to how energies interact. Hume talked about feelings, you know something is right if it feels right, and there are obviously cases that are hard to judge and need wisdom. But as a practioner, the only thing you need to worry about is if it feels right, and to follow that feeling, making it second nature to act out of goodness, or right activity. The splicing and dicing and extreme cases don't matter as much as your habits, that become your traits. What I am saying is that your energies interact with the universe mostly by dint of how you yourself feel about your actions.

 

And how does this relate to the problem of believing one's own morality is superior to others? I wouldn't say I'm churning with logic. I know very little about philosophy, other than Taoism and Buddhism and a bit about Vedanta. Western philosophy was never my bag, but I find the idea of Moral Relativity, not only relevant but also fascinating, since the question of morality is one of the main issues a western practitioner seems to have to come terms with when he starts studying the Eastern philosophies.

 

Aaron

[de_paradise]

On a day to day level, its not difficult to navigate. You understand other people have slightly different morality and work with it in your model of behavior of "right action". Humble and retiring of complicated situations goes a long way. Social frictions will always be there, and debates always continue, but morally lording over people in a gratuitous was is spending time in that endless debate. There is a time and place for it. Note that I cant solve the problem of moral relativity, just present a workable model in order to acheive spiritual progress. Staying connected to that feeling level right and wrong is a good guide.

[Marblehead]

Hmm... but what if you are the gutter dog? I think what you're failing to see is that your morality is only as precious to you as the gutter dog's is to him. If we continue to work along the lines of moral superiority, then how will we ever evolve out of the imperialistic state we are in now?

 

If I am ever the gutter dog then I would want someone to bitch slap me aside the head, in order to get my attention, and be shown how truely wrong I am by doing things that cause harm to others. Remember, you, yourself, have suggested in other threads that doing harm to others, and especially to children, is intolerable.

 

We will never escape the imperialistic state because there are too many people who need government to tell them what to do and what not to do, and, of course, their government is the only right government, Other governments are intolerable.

 

And remember, I never said that these others need be conquered, I said only that they will not get my respect nor do I need tolerate them if they come into my world.

 

My morality is not worth anything, it is only a construct of the mind. Morality is only alive and well because of the perspective we've lived, but the life it lives is merely an illusion, rather than being a living thing, it is a tool we use to justify our actions. So, if I say the Nazi morality was no worse than the American, then that would be true, for to the Nazi the American morality is immoral and to the American the Nazi is at immoral. Morality is the framework in which we trap compassion and peace, keep it confined to our own liking. It is only when we can realize that our morality is no more superior to theirs that we can then see the fallacy that lies within it.

 

Getting a little metaphysical there, aren't you? Let's please stick with the physical please.

 

Morality is, IMO, the set of values by which we live our life. Our moral values are just as real for us as the pants ors skirt we wear. (I wear the pants. No, they are not illusions.)

 

Remember that I am a Nietzschean. To be beyond good and evil is to no longer need any moral values because you will always, intuitively, do the right thing. You will not throw acid in the face of young girls just because they want to go to school and get an education.

 

I doubt that humanity will ever see a commonly acceptable set of moral values. Too many variables and too many different environments where people live for that to ever happen. Too many religions and too many governments, each wanting to be the top dog, for it to happen.

 

Therefore we must each, if we do not want to follow blindly a religion or a politic, establish our own set of moral values. In doing so we must naturally allow each other person to establish their own as well. Now, understand, I am not denying these 'others' the right to establish their own moral values. What I protest are moral values that are destructive to others, and especially to me and those I care about. I will never respect a value that dictates that it is okay to throw acid in a young girls face nor will I ever be tolerant of anyone who does such a thing that is based on their moral values.

 

Morality is a trap. Of course that's what the Tao Te Ching is teaching as well, but it also states the actions one should take and the value of virtue. The problem is that so long as virtue is tied to morality it fails, that's why high virtue is held in high esteem and low virtue is seen as the first steps towards the downfall of man. Of course that's another topic entirely, which we've touched on. The virtue I talk about is the low virtue, which is also talked about in the Tao Te Ching. Failing High Virtue we resort to Low Virtue, and in so doing we allow ourselves to become trapped within the confines of morality.

 

Aaron

I agree with your first sentence. And I find no disagreement with the rest of the paragraph.

 

And I will state here that it is my opinion that it is totally unacceptable to kill one's mother. (That is a thought from Camus whom I am presently reading.)

 

Yes, perhaps morality is simply virtue institutionalized? I'm not sure, haven't thought enough about that concept.

 

Yes, you have spoken previously about low and high virtue - the virtue of man and the virtue of Tao. But even here we need be careful because there are many men (and women) who practice a 'higher' virtue than most, and also, when we look into the physical universe we see great destructions as a result of natural processes exclusive of man.

 

Anyhow, I have established my own set of moral values even though I wish I could truely live in a condition of 'beyond good and evil'. I accept mine as valid as I doubt that they often cause harm to others. Those who hold to moral values that do intentional harm to others I do not respect nor will I tolerate people holding to those values into my life.

 

Yes, I am making value judgements. That's one of the things most of we humans do.

[GrandmasterP]

Philosophy lesson 1 session 1 for first year undergraduates always begins as follows....

Teacher....

"Before embarking upon any philosophical discussion we must first carefully define, in order to clearly agree upon ; mutually acceptable definitions of the terms to be used".

Students...

"WTF!??"

 

After about two years of the three-year degree programme, and if they have hacked the course work; the undergraduates begin to engage reflectively with the meaning and import of that first sentence.

 

No charge for the tutorial chums but this thread is too much like my day job for me to linger longer here.

Edited November 4, 2012 by GrandmasterP

[Nikolai1]

When a person assumes themselves as individuals, and assumes themselves as responsible for their actions they are likely to be concerned with questions of morality. To be in this state is very much of the Tao but they themselves are not aware of the Tao. We might say that they are acted on by the Tao

 

When a person understands that good and evil are the same then they are no longer concerned with questions of morality. It is because they are not concerned with good and evil that there are able to judge each situation on its own merit. This is being aware of the Tao, and acting from the Tao. When one is aware of the Tao one is free to view all as Good. This transcendent understanding is not the same as the ignorant person’s understanding of good.

 

Now I shall explain all this:

 

Moral relativism is an extremely important first stage in transcending the ignorant view. When a person is able to see that what is good for them might be bad for the next person, they are growing in wisdom. But this has nothing yet to do with the transcendent good of the Taoist sage.

 

If a moral relativist still sees themselves and others as individual mortals, they will still take death, and especially their own death, as an evil. They might deny that they think this way, but when it comes down to it, their actions will suggest otherwise.

 

But is this not natural? How can we be unconcerned with our own death?

 

When a person truly sees and understands that they are not the mortal self that they thought they were, they will no longer be concerned with their own survival. Furthermore, they will recognise that so much of what the ignorant world calls evil is particularly useful at bringing about this understanding of their true Self. For example solitary confinement is the punishment ignorant people reserve for the most heinous criminals, and yet it also allows the opportunity for deep, undisturbed prayer and meditation. If you can see the spiritual good even in the cases of bodily harm then you have transcended moral relativism.

 

The sage is therefore free to enjoy what the world sees as good, as well as what the world sees as evil. Some things, he sees, are enjoyed on earth and some things are enjoyed in heaven. He is quite content for any situation to arise, whether good or evil in the normal sense. The sage can still see what the ignorant call good and evil, but he himself takes no view on the matter. All is good. He can be as jolly snorting coke with a girl on each arm, as locked in a cell with only bread and water. All really is good.

 

When a person sees that all is good, he has no need to strive. He is not pre-occupied with his own bodily survival and so doesn’t jeopardize the survival of others. He therefore doesn’t put himself in danger. He hasn’t trodden on anyone’s toes. He therefore survives and endures, and inadvertently achieves what all the ignorant mortals are so desperate to achieve.

 

 

But the mortals cannot understand this one simple point. It is because they are so afraid of evil that they create so much evil. It is their fear of death that leads them to such extremes of evil, very often carried out in the name of good.

 

But as the Tao Te Ching says it is only because the Sage is unconcerned with good and evil that he is able to be good. Extreme behaviour like drugs and whores only emerge in people who are ignorant and far from the path. It is because they are so afraid of evil that they pursue exaggerated forms of the good, in the form of pleasure.

 

Is the way of the Tao the same as moral relativism? No. But moral relativism is definitely a way of finding the path.

[Apech]

Philosophy lesson 1 session 1 for first year undergraduates always begins as follows....

Teacher....

"Before embarking upon any philosophical discussion we must first carefully define, in order to clearly agree upon ; mutually acceptable definitions of the terms to be used".

Students...

"WTF!??"

 

After about two years of the three-year degree programme, and if they have hacked the course work; the undergraduates begin to engage reflectively with the meaning and import of that first sentence.

 

No charge for the tutorial chums but this thread is too much like my day job for me to linger longer here.

 

Lets have some definitions then. Morality, ethics, virtue will do for a start.

 

... just as some thoughts ... I am always interested when atheists like Harris and Dawkins say that knowing what is right and wrong is somehow innate ... they cite Moses coming down the mountain with the tablets and say well the Israelites must have already known that to kill was bad ... they didn't need God to tell them that this was so. I think the confusion over morals is this idea of external authority somehow giving you them and thus making them 'better' than your own natural sense. This makes it hard for people to think through moral relativism because morals are perceived as some kind of carved in stone set of rules.

 

For me the essence is to be a moral or ethical being. What this means actually is not to follow any externally imposed set of dogma (correct or no) but centres on the act or the ability to make a choice. It is the ability to choose that makes you moral or no. The Nazis practiced a fascist ideology which actually takes this responsibility away from the individual and gives it to the central controlling elite. Thus people are told not to think for themselves ... the same goes for certain forms of communism ... and also applies to the conditioning experienced by people in capitalist societies ... so it is almost universal that in order for people to be 'controllable" they have to be denied the chance to be ethical ... otherwise their actions will be individualistic and unpredictable.

[GrandmasterP]

last word I promise

Morals (subjective) and ethics (mutually agreed upon) are contra-distinct .

TTC is amoral but can and has been the foundation of many ethical codes.

Some choose to refer to those ethical codes as morals, that is wrong, they are not morality, they transcend subjective morality as does TTC which of itself transcends any and all subjectification, moral or otherwise.

TTC readers may agree on ethical precepts, form a group based on those; for example a sect or school but their ethical precepts cannot of themselves either define not contain TTC.

 

[Marblehead]

last word I promise

I would be willing to bet that I could inspire you to say a few more.

 

And I will agree, morality is very difficult to talk about because there are so many different understandings regarding the concept. And relative morality? Forget it!

[Birch]

 

For me, many aspects of social life rest on the fact that I can lie about how I feel about things and act otherwise, or feel the way I feel but still act otherwise so as to appear 'moral' or 'good'. Or just to avoid trouble...

But what 'social life' seems to demand is that the playacting become the real. I'd rather be real and hope that it is moral and good, but since the latter are often defined by unreal acting it's a bit of a stretch sometimes.

On 'tolerence' IMO one should not tolerate intolerance.

The reading I make of the TTC suggests that when codified morality appears (as with a stone tablet sent from heaven or, ironically, the TTC itself), it is a sign that true and authentic morality has been lost.

[Marblehead]

The reading I make of the TTC suggests that when codified morality appears (as with a stone tablet sent from heaven or, ironically, the TTC itself), it is a sign that true and authentic morality has been lost.

Excellent observation, I think. In my opinion this is valid with all societies and cultures.

[Stosh]

It seems the general response to the question is that Lao-Tao advocates the innate 'moral' tendencies of individuals , in the belief that there is common ground there. Moral relativism seems to ignore this commonality and puts an unrequired behavioral requisite on the person considering the morals of another.

In the end , You can judge - or not judge , but do understand that there is no objective point of superior validity

( you do still have your subjective point of view though)

This stance places responsibility right back on the person doing judging , removing the shield of self righteousness, yet allows one to do what is expedient.

[Marblehead]

... there is no objective point of superior validity ...

 

Yes. And if this were the only consideration I would have to keep my mouth shut.

[Stosh]

Theres no law in the universe though that guarantees that benefits go to those who are

good, learned, right ,or well intending ,,, the spoils may just as often go to those who are wrong

mean confused or misled. (otherwise we all would pass for angels)

The wellbeing of individuals very often stands against the good of the whole

or it may in fact promote the welbeing of the whole ( or vice versa)

So keeping your mouth shut , isnt required in the other case either IMHO.

For me- I would say it is often the most expedient thing , though it runs against the grain.

This subject is the very sort of thing that I find 'enlightened' about the TTC versus , say,

the ten commandments .. its not dictatorial , it points at the rational 'truth' of the situation,

lets one decide what path to take , and yet still it mollifies our rough edges if we let it.