Taoism and Moral Relativism: Are they mutually inclusive?

[Aaron]

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.

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.

 

Hello Grandmaster P,

 

I'm sorry it took so long to reply, perhaps you're not following this thread anymore, if so that's fine, but I thought the right (and moral) thing to do, would be to respond to your post.

 

You are right (there's that word again), we need a common definition when we talk about these things, so I will lay one out and if someone disagrees, feel free to correct me. For the purposes of this discussion I will use the definition provided by wikipedia which is essentially the same given in Luke's book, which states "Morality... is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong)."

 

In this sense I think the Tao Te Ching is very much a moral text, since the vast majority of the text involves understanding our intentions, decisions, and actions and in so doing recognizing whether they are good or bad. With that said, I feel that Lao Tzu attempted to institute a form of Moral Relavitism, in that he reminds us to question morality, to not take things at face value, and to look beyond pomp, ceremony, and mores and instead evaluate our actions based on their own merits, rather than a codified value. Yet in so doing Lao Tzu was also instituting a school of thought that essentially dictated what was a right action and what was wrong. Chapter 20 is perhaps the greatest example of this and I will quote it for context...

 

 

HAVE done with learning,

And you will have no more vexation.

 

How great is the difference between "eh" and "o"?

What is the distinction between "good" and "evil"?

Must I fear what others fear?

What abysmal nonsense this is!

 

All men are joyous and beaming,

As though feasting upon a sacrificial ox,

As though mounting the Spring Terrace;

I alone am placid and give no sign,

Like a babe which has not yet smiled.

I alone am forlorn as one who has no home to retum to.

 

All men have enough and to spare:

I alone appear to possess nothing.

What a fool I am!

What a muddled mind I have!

All men are bright, bright:

I alone am dim, dim.

All men are sharp, sharp:

I alone am mum, mum!

Bland like the ocean,

Aimless like the wafting gale.

 

All men settle down in their grooves:

I alone am stubborn and remain outside.

But wherein I am most different from others is

In knowing to take sustenance from my Mother!

(tr. John C. H. Wu)

 

As mentioned earlier Lao Tzu implores people to think for themselves, rather than just accept things because someone has told them to do so, but in so doing he then goes on to compare the wrong actions of society with his own right actions. In this chapter he is clearly stating that there is right and wrong, and furthermore, this right and wrong was not an ethical treatise, but rather a moral one, based on his own beliefs. Now the problem we may have is that we tend to believe that morality stems from religious conventions, but as you and I both know that's no so, it also stems from other things, such as social and cultural conventions. In this example Lao Tzu uses the social conventions of society as a mirror for what he believes should be the proper way of thinking and believing, hence he is presenting his own very moral code.

 

So, to keep things short, that's my view. I'd be happy to hear your comments regarding this and I get the feeling that you disagree and that's fine. One thing I've learned from reading Luke's "Moral Relativity" is that we cannot really escape morality, the best we can do is look at it objectively and understand the nature of it.

 

Aaron

Edited November 7, 2012 by Aaron

[Aaron]

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

 

Good point. Wikipedia does a good job of defining these things, at the very least it's in line with what Luke said in his book, so I will use their definitions...

 

Morality... is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong).

 

Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.

 

(Keep in mind though that when I talk about ethics, and I will presume Grandmaster P does as well, I use the definition that Richard Paul and Linda Elder use which is "a set of concepts and principles that guide us in determining what behavior helps or harms sentient creatures".)

 

A virtue is a positive trait or quality deemed to be morally good and thus is valued as a foundation of principle and good moral being. Personal virtues are characteristics valued as promoting collective and individual greatness.

 

(Also keep in mind that this gets fairly touchy within the confines of Taoism, because Lao Tzu alludes to two different types of virtue, High Virtue (refered to as Te) and low virtue (also referred to as te but with a little t). High Virtue stems from Tao and is an action that stems not from a knowledge of right or wrong, but a harmonious action with the environment. The problem that arises is when we place a moral quality upon that action. Low virtue is not spontaneous, but rather an action that is done based on one's knowledge of right and wrong (their morality).

 

I hope that helps to clarify things, but in all honestly it might just complicate them. If you disagree with any of these feel free to elaborate so we can understand exactly what we're discussing.

 

As for Moral Relativity (Stosh I hope you're reading this too, because you were way off base) it is not a judgement of the moral value of another culture or set of moral values, but rather the understanding that one cannot honestly understand another culture without some form of bias, in particular comparing that culture or moral value with your own, even if this is most commonly subconsciously done, because morality is always based on one's own perspective and experiences.

 

In a practical sense Moral Relativity is tool one uses to examine morality as scientifically as possible, attempting to rid one's self of preconceived notions of morality in order to understand the underlying methodology and practice of that morality.

 

Anyways, I'm heading out of town tomorrow and wont be back until Friday night, so I hope to hear some input regarding this topic, which I think is a valuable one, by then, if not, that's fine as well.

 

Aaron

Edited November 7, 2012 by Aaron

[Stosh]

Good point. Wikipedia does a good job of defining these things, at the very least it's in line with what Luke said in his book, so I will use their definitions...

 

As for Moral Relativity (Stosh I hope you're reading this too, because you were way off base) it is not a judgement of the moral value of another culture or set of moral values, but rather the understanding that one cannot honestly understand another culture without some form of bias, in particular comparing that culture or moral value with your own, even if this is most commonly subconsciously done, because morality is always based on one's own perspective and experiences.

 

In a practical sense Moral Relativity is tool one uses to examine morality as scientifically as possible, attempting to rid one's self of preconceived notions of morality in order to understand the underlying methodology and practice of that morality.

 

Anyways, I'm heading out of town tomorrow and wont be back until Friday night, so I hope to hear some input regarding this topic, which I think is a valuable one, by then, if not, that's fine as well.

 

Aaron

From wikipedia

Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.

 

My earlier post was as follows

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.

 

Im not off base at all , still with ya ,

Its just a different angle is all

Stosh

Edited November 7, 2012 by Stosh

[hydrogen]

:

:

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.

 

:

:

 

Wow, I'm impressed. If this person acts as he says here, he's a sage himself.

 

The world exists because of paradox. I used to be afraid of death. The day that I realized that I was imortal, I didn't want to live anymore.

[Marblehead]

I used to be afraid of death. The day that I realized that I was imortal, I didn't want to live anymore.

You need to work on that!

[Everything]

Taoism has got nothing to do with morality.

 

Tao treats both morality and immorality equally.

 

Tao respects morality like Tao respects any limitation. They are there for our inexhaustable experience of them. Tao allows it be.

 

Only trough our utter freedom are we able to choose bondage. Thus, all slaves are bound to their own freedom. There's no other way for it to be. For there is no one there to contradict them but they themselfs.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Everything

[Everything]

The day that I realized that I was imortal, I didn't want to live anymore.

Sounds like you have allot of reasons to not live anymore. Your cup is full of these reasons. There's no way to empty them, because you're plugged in the inexhaustable fountain of all things bad and it shall keep on pouring over your being like it's a perpetuum mobile.

 

The only way out is to take ownership of your response-ability towards these circumstances in your life. There's no single circumstance in all of existance capable of contradicting you, since all circumstances revolve arounds it's center point, which is the point of all creation and power of great Greatness. How can one contradict such a power that requires no effort, but the effort to BE, to move all of existance. Only the One himself....

 

We all are the center-point of all circumstances.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Everything

[GrandmasterP]

Stuff just happens all the time. We can choose to label some of the stuff immoral or moral as we choose (and most do, sometimes unconsciously, as with innate prejudice). The better approach is to discount morality in favour of ethical precepts as those transcend sectional interest, have to be worked out and also be mutually acceptable by the contracting parties (let's call those 'society') in order to succeed harmoniously.

For example some ( not me) might hold same gender marriage to be immoral. However, I am sure we could all agree that it would be unethical to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality.

The subjective moral position is in no wise challenged by that ethical stance both may co-exist even though the latter is somewhat the more equitable. Were the former to have precedence then injustice must prevail as it did for many years in western societies.

In an ethical society contra-distinct moralities may co-exist always provided that no single moral stance be taken as paradigmatic.

To claim TTC as a moral document smacks of wishful thinking which at best is akin to attempt fitting horse blinkers onto its covers.

I shall substitute 'transcends morality' for the obviously unacceptable 'amoral' in relation to TTC but beyond that one cannot go.

[GrandmasterP]

Be careful what you wish for hydrogen.

There's an old spiritualist story about a squire who upon learning of the Summerland (spiritualist heaven) exclaimed...

'It is SO wonderful, I cannot wait to get there'.

He was dead within the week, cause unknown.

Mortality is both cyclical and an essential facet of our immortality.

Every turn on the roundabout is an opportunity to improve on the last time round.

[Aaron]

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.

 

I'm not sure if the TTC is against codified morality, so much as it is ceremony and pomp, i.e. something that isn't sincere. Much of morality it sincere, in fact it's ingrained in us as children, this is the reason we feel shame when we do something we perceive to be wrong.

 

I advocate ethical behavior by following one simple rule, do no harm to yourself or others. The problem of course is that it's not always simple what constitutes harm, so this still requires a bit of work on the part of the thinker.

 

In the end I think Lao Tzu was advocating this too, that instead of accepting things as they are, that we question what's going on, make our choices for ourselves. Of course that doesn't mean that he didn't advocate "right" behavior, or point out "wrong" behavior. The TTC, if one is willing to look at it closely, is rife with morality. In fact it is a moral text, not just in many ways, but in purpose.

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

Moral relativism seems to ignore this commonality and puts an unrequired behavioral requisite on the person considering the morals of another.

 

This is where you are significantly off base. In moral relativism it isn't the behavior that's important, but the meaning behind the behavior. Two different cultures could advocate cremating one's parents, to someone who practices moral relativism, the important thing is not cremation, but the reason behind the cremation, the why. Even more important is to attempt to view this reason, not within the confines of one's own moral lens, but preferably from within the society's own social construct. The way one does this is by omitting right and wrong from their examination and instead just examining the motivations. So in that sense you are right, it very much is about objectivity.

 

Anyways, don't be too hard on yourself, you were 20% right, you just missed the major crux.

 

Aaron

Edited November 10, 2012 by Aaron

[Aaron]

Stuff just happens all the time. We can choose to label some of the stuff immoral or moral as we choose (and most do, sometimes unconsciously, as with innate prejudice). The better approach is to discount morality in favour of ethical precepts as those transcend sectional interest, have to be worked out and also be mutually acceptable by the contracting parties (let's call those 'society') in order to succeed harmoniously.

For example some ( not me) might hold same gender marriage to be immoral. However, I am sure we could all agree that it would be unethical to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality.

The subjective moral position is in no wise challenged by that ethical stance both may co-exist even though the latter is somewhat the more equitable. Were the former to have precedence then injustice must prevail as it did for many years in western societies.

In an ethical society contra-distinct moralities may co-exist always provided that no single moral stance be taken as paradigmatic.

To claim TTC as a moral document smacks of wishful thinking which at best is akin to attempt fitting horse blinkers onto its covers.

I shall substitute 'transcends morality' for the obviously unacceptable 'amoral' in relation to TTC but beyond that one cannot go.

 

I think the wishful thinking is on the part of those who don't want to accept that it is a moral treatise. They want to be able to believe that they can do anything so long as it's 'from the tao'. Want to cheat on your wife? Well that's alright so long as it's from the Tao. Want to sell drugs to five year olds? Well that's alright so long as it's from the Tao. It's all about justifying their own behavior. The one thing I get a kick out of is those people who want to justify their own behavior by attributing it to Taoism, yet if they've read the Tao Te Ching, then they'd understand that there are good and bad men, that there is a right and wrong way to behave, and that there are valued character traits as well as one's that aren't valued. The three treasures come to mind.

 

In the end if your looking for a justification for living life as you see fit, with no regard for others, well you may want to look elsewhere, because I know of no religion that advocates this. Even Satanism warns that if you do decide to harm someone else, expect that harm to be reciprocated. In the end any organized religion or philosophy requires that you respect others in a moral way, in order for it to succeed, so trying to find one that will allow you to do what you wish is going to be extremely hard.

 

Aaron

Edited November 10, 2012 by Aaron

[GrandmasterP]

Those examples would be considered immoral in most societies and unethical within contracting groups who had agreed to abide by precepts of constancy Aaron. Ethical precepts factor out moral subjectification. The observed effects may well be quite similar and to all intents and purposes identical but the causal epistemology is quite different. It's far more than a play on words , it is the intention behind the judgement of the act that is quite other between a moral and an ethical stance. Moral relativism is posited upon the classical western view of morality that you Are doing well to begin to articulate reflectively, and well done for that. Your position is not wrong, indeed it is prevalent albeit simply a position amongst extant others. Moralists tend to be either unaware of or reluctant to engage with other positions, amongst which is the ethical stance.

Outside canon law, jurisprudence takes the ethical stance whereas theology is posited upon the moral approach.

Edited November 10, 2012 by GrandmasterP

[Aaron]

Those examples would be considered immoral in most societies and unethical within contracting groups who had agreed to abide by precepts of constancy Aaron. Ethical precepts factor out moral subjectification. The observed effects may well be quite similar and to all intents and purposes identical but the causal epistemology is quite different. It's far more than a play on words , it is the intention behind the judgement of the act that is quite other between a moral and an ethical stance. Moral relativism is posited upon the classical western view of morality that you Are doing well to begin to articulate reflectively, and well done for that. Your position is not wrong, indeed it is prevalent albeit simply a position amongst extant others. Moralists tend to be either unaware of or reluctant to engage with other positions, amongst which is the ethical stance.

Outside canon law, jurisprudence takes the ethical stance whereas theology is posited upon the moral approach.

 

Hello GrandmasterP,

 

Sorry it took so long to reply to this post. I've had a busy week and I really didn't have the time to reply to this post, especially since I think some of the points you make deserve some serious contemplation and investigation.

 

I was particularly fond of your recognition that the vast majority of Moralists tend to be unaware or unwilling to engage with other positions, even the ethical position. I think the majority tend to be unwilling more than unaware.

 

Over the week I had a long discussion about the education system in America, where I mentioned to a co-worker that the vast majority of America's Education System woes, have to do with the Teacher's Unions. Simply put the unions seem to work to protect the teacher's jobs, more than they do the quality of education of our students. Case in point, in many states teachers who fail to teach their students are neither fired or relieved from duty, rather they are either taken out of the class and placed in a disciplinary class of their own, or left in the class to continue to perform inadequately, simply because the process of firing a teacher for poor performance is nearly impossible in most districts. The result is that billions of dollars each year are spent paying teachers who are either not actually in the classroom or incapable or unwilling to teach their students, rather than spent increasing the wages of qualified teachers or school materials.

 

Even after pointing this out to my friend, who is a self-identified fundamentalist Christian, he refused to acknowledge my argument, chalked it up to propaganda and proceeded to tell me how it's the disintegration of family values that is causing much of the harm, that sex education, single parent homes, and the lack of good moral lessons is the cause of most of these problems.

 

Even though I was able to show actual evidence, studies, documentaries, etc. he failed to accept it, because he is certain that the problems in modern society have to do with the prevalence of immorality in modern society, rather than the lack of aptitude of teachers.

 

So in this instance we must ask ourselves, isn't it even more important for us to examine the effects of morality on cultures, even our own, as objectively as possible, if we really want to solve some of these issues that we have abstractly blamed on immorality? If we just accept that immorality is to blame, without actually investigating it, how can we ever expect to find an answer or solution, especially since the solution moralists have come up with have failed to solve many of these problems for thousands of years?

 

I think the lesson that Lao Tzu (not the imposter, but the original) wanted us to come away with, is similar to the one that Moral Relativists are trying to impress upon us as well, that without an objective examination of why we do what we do, we can never really understand the implications or effects of our actions, nor can we ever change them.

 

Aaron

Edited November 16, 2012 by Aaron

[GrandmasterP]

 

 

Hello GrandmasterP,

 

Sorry it took so long to reply to this post. I've had a busy week and I really didn't have the time to reply to this post, especially since I think some of the points you make deserve some serious contemplation and investigation.

 

I was particularly fond of your recognition that the vast majority of Moralists tend to be unaware or unwilling to engage with other positions, even the ethical position. I think the majority tend to be unwilling more than unaware.

 

Over the week I had a long discussion about the education system in America, where I mentioned to a co-worker that the vast majority of America's Education System woes, have to do with the Teacher's Unions. Simply put the unions seem to work to protect the teacher's jobs, more than they do the quality of education of our students. Case in point, in many states teachers who fail to teach their students are neither fired or relieved from duty, rather they are either taken out of the class and placed in a disciplinary class of their own, or left in the class to continue to perform inadequately, simply because the process of firing a teacher for poor performance is nearly impossible in most districts. The result is that billions of dollars each year are spent paying teachers who are either not actually in the classroom or incapable or unwilling to teach their students, rather than spent increasing the wages of qualified teachers or school materials.

 

Even after pointing this out to my friend, who is a self-identified fundamentalist Christian, he refused to acknowledge my argument, chalked it up to propaganda and proceeded to tell me how it's the disintegration of family values that is causing much of the harm, that sex education, single parent homes, and the lack of good moral lessons is the cause of most of these problems.

 

Even though I was able to show actual evidence, studies, documentaries, etc. he failed to accept it, because he is certain that the problems in modern society have to do with the prevalence of immorality in modern society, rather than the lack of aptitude of teachers.

 

So in this instance we must ask ourselves, isn't it even more important for us to examine the effects of morality on cultures, even our own, as objectively as possible, if we really want to solve some of these issues that we have abstractly blamed on immorality? If we just accept that immorality is to blame, without actually investigating it, how can we ever expect to find an answer or solution, especially since the solution moralists have come up with have failed to solve many of these problems for thousands of years?

 

I think the lesson that Lao Tzu (not the imposter, but the original) wanted us to come away with, is similar to the one that Moral Relativists are trying to impress upon us as well, that without an objective examination of why we do what we do, we can never really understand the implications or effects of our actions, nor can we ever change them.

 

Aaron

 

...............

Oh boy and me a branch secretary (union official) for a teachers' union and have been these twenty-eight years past.

Some of our members would say that some of the strokes management tries to pull are immoral, I tend to say unethical or down right mean and petty minded in some cases.

I suspect we are saying much the same things about TTC but choosing different language to do so Aaron.

Someone once said that...

The unexamined life is not worth living..

And whatever else TTC may or may not do it certainly causes anyone who engages with it beyond the superficial to stop and think.

That has to be good.

 

[hydrogen]

Sounds like you have allot of reasons to not live anymore. Your cup is full of these reasons. There's no way to empty them, because you're plugged in the inexhaustable fountain of all things bad and it shall keep on pouring over your being like it's a perpetuum mobile.

 

The only way out is to take ownership of your response-ability towards these circumstances in your life. There's no single circumstance in all of existance capable of contradicting you, since all circumstances revolve arounds it's center point, which is the point of all creation and power of great Greatness. How can one contradict such a power that requires no effort, but the effort to BE, to move all of existance. Only the One himself....

 

We all are the center-point of all circumstances.

 

Then how come when I truly believe that I was the one, I had to die? Twice already.

 

Are you the center of your own circumstances?

[Aaron]

With all the other threads regarding religion, homophobia, etc. I thought it might be a good time to bump this thread, since I think the key to solving a lot of these issues lies within Moral Relativity.

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

With all of the attacks on homosexuality this year, I am finding it hard to be a moral relativist. I can't help but see this homophobia as attacks based on cultural and social mores, rather than based on ethical epistemology. It staggers my mind that people can have hate so ingrained that they revert to spiteful children. 

[Nikolai1]

And sadly homosexuality staggers people, it is one of the few taboos that are truly global, and arouses deep and genuine disgust in many, if not most people.

 

The moral task for the persecuted homosexual is to ensure that love, understanding and empathy are extended to those that persecute them.

 

It may help if you focus on the negative feelings towards your persecutors, sit with them, and then remember that you cause these same negative emotions in others. By taking responsibility for the disgust you bring to others you are then in a position to truly and creatively find love for them. Your abhorrence of your own hurt will make you want to atone for the hurt you cause to others. Love for your prosecutors is the only solution.

 

But most of all do not change who you are or what you are. You must be simultaneously proud of being gay, and regretful of the hurt it causes. A most difficult tightrope to walk, but hugely hugely beneficial for your practice.

[the1gza]

The thing is, you can't force your ideas on anyone, especially if you do not embody them. I know that the OP is gay, but hell, I'm black, Jewish (for most my life, not now), academically gifted aka nerd, raised vegetarian... I'm a super minority (it's a nickname, I didn't come up with it). As someone who is "different" you gotta accept that the general population does not like that which does not fit their idea of normal. Every last single one of my siblings was picked on heavily as a child. The only difference with me was that I was willing to meet people half way and show that that I was interested in getting to know what they were about. That can be something that feels extremely dangerous, but in my experience, those who are different thrive by being able to empathize with the people who might dislike them.

 

People sorely underestimate just how non-developed the human psyche is, and the fact that despite all our technology, as a species we are still extremely immature. This is not just in the case of bigots, but also "different" people. Bigots are unwilling to change, and yet those who want them to change do so by judging bigots as "evil" and leaving the sole responsibility of that change on the bigots themselves. Look at civil rights, most of it revolved solely around complaining and protest. There were not demonstrated, concentrated efforts amongst oppressed races to actually understand where the hatred of other races came from. There was a general unwillingness to ever look at the idea of this hatred as being something that can actually be a very human response to things that are different. Nope, if you are a racist, you are just bad, period.

 

As such, we have a lot of people who considered themselves "non-racists" simply because they can be politically correct: "I don't call blacks "niggers", latinos "spics", "asian" people "chinks", or homosexuals "fags" or "dykes". Therefore, I am not a bigot." However, since the movement towards integration has been solely based on rules and not on psychological acceptance, then many of these sentiments that were represented by these words still exist. You might not call black people niggers, but you won't let your children go to school with them. I personally went to school where at least 20% of the white student body, which was 45% of the school population at the time, had never gone to school with a black person until they went to high school. This was in 2002, so it's not like this is something in the far out past.

 

All I'm saying is, morals have limits, and they are even more limited if they are not shaped giving mind to everyone you would wish to accept them. If you try to counter bigotry with bigotry for bigots... well them, that's how wars start. It takes a whole lotta work on the part of the oppressed to do the changing, not complaining to people who dislike them. However, this would take the oppressed first looking at themselves and their issues, and seeing if, in fact, they are as together as they think they might be. There are a lot of unhealthy mindsets that homosexuals, racial and religious minorities, and oppressed people of all kinds possess that require personal and group healing within themselves. These problems are so deep that it can be quite idiotic for them to honestly be telling others to treat them with respect. Hell, as a black person, I can say the the current black image in America, while perhaps birthed by racist sentiments, is wholeheartedly encouraged and imbibed upon by the general black populace. As such, there has not been powerful enough movement to fix that, because black folks are too busy being distracted by things that do not allow them to embark on intense self-healing. That honestly cannot be done by anyone but black people themselves, both on an individual level and on a group level.

 

Without that, I do not feel that people should even be talking about morals, simply because we don't even get a good chance to know ourselves well enough to create a moral code that even speaks to our own individual selves. How could we possibly try telling others what to do, when we don't even know who we are? That is what I feel the issue is, and is also why I feel that most spiritual cultivation cultures focus on acts on an individual level. You can't really teach a guy how to wipe their ass if you are still wearing diapers.

[9th]

But most of all do not change who you are or what you are. You must be simultaneously proud of being gay, and regretful of the hurt it causes.

 

Im not gay so I cant exactly speak for them - but this idea seems suspect at best.  You are suggesting they should feel guilty for their sexual preference?  Im not sure why they should be "regretting" anything.

[Stosh]

re·gret

rəˈɡret/

verb

 

1. 
   
   
   

   1.

   
   

   
   

   feel sad, repentant, or disappointed over (something that has happened or been done, especially a loss or missed opportunity).

   
   

   
   
   
   
   

[Nikolai1]

Hi 9th

 

 

You are suggesting they should feel guilty for their sexual preference?  Im not sure why they should be "regretting" anything.

 

I tried to choose my words carefully to get the subtlety and thanks to Stosh for pointing out the many ways regret can be interpreted.

 

I think the persecuted gay person has to confront the fact that they are a source of disgust.  This needs to be faced quite squarely and with the spirit of responsibility. Trying to pass the blame onto the persecutor by deriding what Aaron called 'spiteful childlike behaviour' is not the solution.  This is the same kind of quasi-solution we see in homophobics who wish only that gay people stop being gay and behave normally.  Both appeal to a standard of moral conduct that is spurious.

 

So I wish the gay person to take responsibility and atone for the disgust they bring into the world.  This is done by bravely accepting both their sexuality and the disgust it brings. When both of these are fully accepted then love is free to come in.

 

Love for any kind of bigoted perpetrator can only come in when we recognise that they suffer because of us.  We are the poison that afflicts them.  The spirit of contrition for our own selves enables love to flow.  Expectation that the other be contrite and not us stems the flow of love.

 

As I'm sure you've realised, I would offer the exact same advice to any homophobic person.  All of us need to follow the same advice

 

Moral judgement is never rational.  There is no correct or incorrect mode of behaviour.  At the behavioural level, morality is always a relativistic concept.  

 

But in terms of our own individual attitude, there is an infallible moral truth and it is called Love.

[Perceiver]

Understanding that there are different morals from person to person and culture to culture is a healthy and true belief.

 

Believing that absolute moral relativity prevails in every situation is however not.

 

Because that would mean that there isn't anything inherently wrong with for example killing someone for fun. Such a belief sucks.