Ethics - binding or liberating?

[Aetherous]

Personal ethics, morality, right and wrong...

On the spiritual path, do these bind us? Do they liberate us?

Also, in the material world, do these bind us or help us?

...

I've been looking for summer work, and just found the job of my dreams, which pays twice as much as I thought I could get. But a requirement for the job was having a year of experience in the past 3 years...when I personally had experience prior to that but not during that time. So the person hiring just said to ask a friend to say that I worked for them, and get the job.

I had to turn down the offer due to personal ethics, of having honor in business deals and not lying.

Living in the material world, this seemed to be very binding. Now I don't have a job that I actually like, and am not earning money that I would love.

On the other hand...perhaps at times, one's integrity is looked upon and favored by others. Perhaps it gets us a higher position, whereas a liar would be outed and fired from a job for instance.

Spiritually, did this problem bind me? I personally think that holding fast to our values is one thing that liberates us. Lets take Buddhist philosophy as an example...we're not to have attachment or aversion, or apathy. Holding values might be considered "attachment" to some...but actually I think doing anything for a quick buck is attachment, and that the common way of being displays an aversion to morality. Most people are apathetic or ignorant about how their breaking of virtues has consequences both for themselves and others. So, we can actually use our personal values as a tool for promoting non-attachment, etc.

Holding onto them strongly can be liberating, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Aetherous

[z00se]

The best thing about ethics and following one of these Asian philosophies is that ethics can be switched around every which way. Its apparent in Asian culture with the high level of corruption. Most people lie in interviews, i think interviewers expect it and those who dont get left behind. What if that tiny fib got you the job and you made them lots of money because you loved it so much, more money than the next guy who ended up with the job. I think the main question is would your heart be more comfortable in the long run knowing you told a little white lie but doing what you love and getting paid, or working a different job or currently no job and getting government handouts from everyones tax money Of course you could always just apply and in the interview just explain the situation, they may be fine with it. That's what i would try.

[Aetherous]

The best thing about ethics and following one of these Asian philosophies is that ethics can be switched around every which way. Its apparent in Asian culture with the high level of corruption. Most people lie in interviews, i think interviewers expect it and those who dont get left behind.

 

It is certainly the way the world works, and most people would laugh at my foolishness in this situation. The spiritual path is different from all of that, though.

 

What if that tiny fib got you the job and you made them lots of money because you loved it so much

 

Well, lets say that happened. But in order to make that good thing happen, I myself had to lie, and also had to convince a friend to tell a lie for me...it just wasn't acceptable for me to do, to knowingly do the wrong thing (and additionally have someone else knowingly do the wrong thing) when my primary goal in life is spiritual development. Would my heart be conflicted the whole time after lying and working for them? No...I'd be rolling in dough and enjoying my work...but the thing about values is you either hold yourself to them, or you really don't have them at all.

 

Do I want to be lied to, ever? No...I highly value the truth and knowing exactly where I stand, no matter what. So therefore, I shouldn't lie to others about anything, if possible. Not that I should always be brutally honest in all things (because not everyone is into that of course), but when it comes to blatantly lying to others, that is unacceptable. To do what I hate others doing would be very short sighted of me.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Aetherous

[z00se]

You may not want to be lied to, but you surely will be. Animals and plants lie to each other through disguises and tricky appearances. This is god, this is Tao. I think its impossible to take a fully spiritualist path without having some lower virtuous traits, after all Tao seeks balance. A lie is a lie, truth is nothing but A truth, and what is real is what is real. Flow and change is inevitable and so long as one thinks, they need to think up ways to feel good about those thoughts. What if you didn't think? Would you still be lying?

[Aetherous]

You may not want to be lied to, but you surely will be.

 

Of course...but that's not good reason to join in and do it to others, myself. Actually it's reason not to do it...one less liar in the world makes the world a better place.

 

 

I think its impossible to take a fully spiritualist path without having some lower virtuous traits, after all Tao seeks balance.

 

Of course no one is perfect...but being imperfect is not good reason to choose the wrong path when you're presented with a clear choice. More importantly, when you've already chosen spiritual cultivation as your path.

 

I personally disagree with your ideas of the Dao and god...I don't think Daoism is nihilist by any means. The Hua hu jing is good to read.

 

Edited June 25, 2015 by Aetherous

[z00se]

I like your reasoning, and its commendable. To me ethics is a bit of a muddled up mess because there are several different schools of thought, i forget their names but i had to do ethics for my computer science degree. Perhaps i seem cold because i wouldn't mind you lying to me in those circumstances if i was the employer. The main thing is you made the right choice for you. Binding and liberating. For those without ethics they are liberated already but likely to be bound in chains by everyone else

[Brian]

Be a good and moral person simply because you know it is right.

[Yasjua]

Personal ethics, morality, right and wrong...

 

On the spiritual path, do these bind us? Do they liberate us?

 

 

Everyone has values that they hold. Some are just for show. They are the ego's unconscious way of denying shadow. Others are for real growth. They are the ego's conscious way of denying shadow. Were your values just for show, you'd have taken the deal.

 

Consciousness of this sort is a muscle. I think that by exercising it in this event you've sent feedback to yourself and others that will reinforce and reify your character structure, giving you greater presence, confidence, and charisma as a future leader/teacher/healer. It may be a temporary setback for you financially and may have even deprived you of an opportunity for hands-on learning. Additionally you may only ultimately guess at the net-consequence of your decision.

 

Questions to consider: Are you swelling with pride? Filled with regret? Then maybe there was no good reason for you to uphold your values - your longing for identity and material satisfaction are still too strong. Your real values lie elsewhere and you must take an integral perspective to your humanity to assimilate and experience the good and bad together with consciousness. Alternately, are you equanimous? Backed by an inner certitude in your path, your values, and decision? Then you have claimed your integrity and will beam. You will be effortlessly distinguished when the time comes. 

 

I do think committing to this sort of spiritual practice that you've just described unbinds you from material dependencies. It may even inadvertently bring you greater material wealth in the future. However, only you can determine if you're upholding your spiritual values because you have introjected some kind of moral conduct system from your environment (aka having a stick up your ass) or if you've generated your principles and values from within. Which master are you serving? An abstract moral authority, or your inner self?

Edited June 25, 2015 by Yasjua

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Some time ago as part of my teaching efforts I put together some annotated reading lists, this one titled, "Core Books for an Ethics of Self-Realization", summarizes the importance of ethics very nicely.  In the West we are so used to thinking of Ethics as "self-denial" and "submission" to some outside authority, i.e. "God" or whatever, that the notion of Ethics as self-realization comes as a surprise, so for what its worth here is a short argument for ethical action, complete with recommended reading:

 

 

Core Books for an Ethics of Self-Realization 

 

1) Nature, Mind and Modern Science, Harris, Errol E.; London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd; 1968

 

2) The Evolution of Cooperation, Axelrod, Robert; New York, Basic Books, Inc.;1984

 

3) The Moral Sense, Wilson, James Q.; New York, The Free Press;1993

 

4) Plato’s Modern Enemies and the Theory of Natural Law, Wild, John; Chicago, The University of Chicago Press;1953

 

5) Moral Scepticism and Moral Knowledge, Bambrough, Renford; London, Routledge & Kegan Paul;

 

6) Humanity and Self-Cultivation, Tu Wei-ming; Berkeley, Asian Humanities Press;1979

 

7) Confucian Thought; Selfhood as Creative Transformation, Tu Wei-ming; Albany, The State University of New York Press;1985

 

8) An Essay on Philosophical Method, Collingwood, R. G.; Oxford, Oxford University Press;1933

 

Each of the Above books contains fundamental notions of my teachings.  The following discussion helps to put them in context, though it hardly is enough to do justice to the larger context in which they exist.  That larger context will eventually be provided by papers similar to this which will list and comment on the books which form the background to this list.

 

The importance of item 1,  Nature, Mind and Modern Science is neatly summarized on page 452, “...empiricism, though it persists, is a relic of the past without scientific basis, and has itself proved to be, in this age of evolution, relativity and quanta, an outworn and outmoded superstition.”  What Harris means in this quote by empiricism is basically what we would usually refer to a materialism and its ideology, reductionism.  That materialism is fundamentally unscientific comes as a shock to many, but the whole of twentieth century physics and in particular quantum mechanics (which, by the way, is not mechanical) can be viewed as a reductio ad absurdum of the atomistic and mechanistic postulates which were proposed in the 17th century and have remained as unexamined presuppositions ever since.  Indeed the status of Materialism in science is on a par with the presupposition of Biblical literalism and inerrancy among Christian fundamentalists.  It is often represented as one of the great triumphs of Science, yet its real history and the highly polemical part which it played in the religious controversies of the 17th and 18th centuries is part of the hidden history of science which is so much in contrast to mythology of “Scientific Progress” of which it is heralded as the necessary beginning.  Facts such as that Descartes purely mechanistic and atomistic physics is a dismal failure while the great success of the “scientific revolution”, Newton’s physics, was rightly criticized by Christian Huygens, the greatest observational astronomer of the era, as reintroducing “occult virtues” and “action at a distance”, are neatly swept under the rug of oblivion.  The part which Catholic-Protestant polemics played in the development of science has until recently been ignored, the deleterious effects of Cartesian dualism have been so pervasive as to be almost the intellectual equivalent of some environmental poison, so common as to be taken for the natural state of things and thus ignored, and the importance of the revival of Epicureanism and its importance to 18th century anti-clericism is viewed as the triumph of “reason” over “superstition”, in which the implicit and unexamined presupposition is that materialism is the only rational world-view, a view which such rationalist as Plato and Aristotle would have had considerable to say to the contrary.

 

Basically the fundamental position of my teachings is that materialism has been refuted by science and anyone who believes it is neither scientific, nor rational no matter what they may believe to the contrary.  Also fundamental is the idea that a rational world-view does exist and that it is outlined in the works of Plato and developed over the next few centuries.  The fact that this rational world view is fundamentally transcendental in its perspective and culminates in the interpretation of Plato put forward by the “mystical” philosopher Plotinus may seem surprising to many, but life is like that and the case can be made with a rigor that would surprise someone who is not familiar with the literature and that includes something like 99.44% of the population, at the very least.  The result is what I have been calling ‘rational mysticism’ since the early 80's.

 

Now reason is important because it allows us to use an objective standard and rise out of the prison of our subjectivity, it creates the possibility of clarifying issues and reaching agreement without resorting to force.

 

The next two works complement each other, and are basically important because they can be used to show the moral relativist that a fundamentally biological basis for moral behavior can be shown.  This is necessary because while to a person who accepts a transcendentalist perspective it is relatively easy to argue that immoral behavior is foolish behavior, whether because of “karma” or “Divine Justice” or whatever, as Lucretius points out, if all is nothing but the endless interplay of atoms the gods will not punish us for our sins.  And in this one finds one of the powerful motivational basis for materialism, that no matter how horribly we behave there is no need to fear anything beyond immediate human retribution and if we can only hid our crimes or be powerful enough to avoid the wrath of the injured party we can freely indulge in any desire we might have.  Granted a transcendental perspective is not a guarantee of good behavior anymore than the threat of punishment is in ordinary human justice, for we are assured that Karma can be “burned” and that Divine Mercy and forgiveness temper all judgements.  That is why a totally different perspective on ethics and morality is necessary and this perspective is provided by items 4, 6 and 7 which lay the foundation for moral behavior as self-realization rather than as self-denial.  A foundation for this is laid by items 2 and 3 which can be used to counter the “selfish gene” mythology which seems to make altruism such a curious anomaly as to seem like a divine miracle, but items 2 and 3 can be read as an argument that even in the most reductionist Darwinian terms the “selfish gene” must “learn” to cooperate in order to survive and flourish, and the way that it does this is to learn altruistic behavior and the emotional life that supports it.

 

In The Evolution of Cooperation Axelrod develops at some length what we might call the mathematics of cooperation and then develops some of the implications of this theory.  Basically what Axelrod does is to show that in a large number of contexts cooperation between parties is the most profitable strategy to follow, once such a basis is laid it becomes possible to argue, as has been done in the case of the evolution of flight, that a genetic propensity for cooperation would evolve with all of the necessary motivational components just as exist in the case of eating and reproduction.  In The Moral Sense, this is exactly what James Q. Wilson endeavors to do.

 

When I first read Axelrod’s paper in Science twenty or so years ago I almost immediately saw the possibility of the types of arguments that Wilson marshals in his book.  To a certain extent Axelrod does this in his book, but Wilson develops the possibilities in a very powerful way, and makes a strong case that the possibility of civilized behavior is not something that is a mere thin veneer on a clever and unruly monkey, but rather a deeply rooted genetic potential that can be nourished and be the source of as much satisfaction as good food or good sex, with the implication that the person who does not do so is unwittingly impoverishing their life leaving a large part of their human potential undeveloped.  This of course also helps lay the foundation for the shift from the moral life as a life of self-denial to the moral life as a life of self-realization.

 

That this is the case is argued in item 4, Plato’s Modern Enemies and the Theory of Natural Law.  In this work John Wild argue’s three points, first that a moral theory called natural law is the best way to structure a personal ethics and moral system, second that it is the only system that allows a rigorous development from personal to social, and finally that historically all of the essential points of natural law theory are represented in the works of Plato and form part of Plato’s implicit understanding of the basis of Morality.

 

Now let’s straighten out some of the tangles of misconceptions that surround some of these issues.  First of all “natural” law does not have to do with some mythic “law of the jungle”.  Aside from the fact that it is now possible to point out that it is not a “dog eat dog” world, but a dog help dog world so that even the imagined state of things in the jungle must be reexamined, the nature that is the basis of natural law is human nature and the idea is that both a personal ethics and legal code should be tailor made to fit human nature so as to maximize the potential for self-realization and happiness as a human being.  Now the proviso “as a human being” is important because within the theory of natural law it provides a limit in the sense of giving an ideal to be striven for and a lowest boundary not to crossed on pain of sacrificing humanity and becoming monstrous.  Now within the boundaries of human behavior there is an enormous area for personal difference and freedom of expression and for the possibilities of self-realization and happiness, it is not an area of rigid conformity but a land of self-discovery.  It is also important to realize that Natural Law theories of ethics have a positive opinion of human nature and would never allow “but I’m only human”, to be an excuse, they would reply that as a human being you have the potential for discipline and self-control and if you refuse to develop these potentials you are only impoverishing yourself.

 

In my teachings an important distinction is made between human nature and hominid nature.  In Chinese traditions this would be the difference between the ‘superior man’ and the ‘inferior man’.  The superior man takes human nature as an ideal, works to tame the inner monkey of hominid nature and strives to realize his nature as a human being, the inferior man remains at the mercy of his inner monkey instead of following the path of Human self-realization follows the path of hominid self-indulgence and becomes a perpetual victim of “clever monkey syndrome”, being punished for his foolishness and self-indulgence by the unwanted consequences of his actions.

 

Items 4,5,6 and 7 form something of a set with 4 and 5 giving a traditional western answer to human nature and ethical norms and 6 and 7 giving a traditional Chinese answer.  One of the interesting things is the way in which these answers complement each other, because a rough equivalence can be seen between the Socratic “tendance of the soul” and the Confucian “cultivation of Humanity”.  This is particularly so when Mencius’ clarification of human nature as “heart/mind” is taken into consideration.

 

Item 5, Renford Bambrough’s Moral Scepticism and Moral Knowledge, is a real masterpiece.  It’s fundamental argument is that moral knowledge is possible and that to deny that it is, is to undermine the basis of other forms of knowledge such as science.  This he develops very artfully.  Addressing the moral relativist’s argument he notes that some are misguided and fallacious, others that survive the analysis turn out to be as applicable to science as to moral reasoning thus showing that it is inconsistent to argue as many have that science is objective and moral reasoning is subjective.  It also raises a question not addressed by Bambrough, which is, if scientific reasoning is profitable in learning about the natural world and learning to create powerful technologies, than is there an analogous  possibility of profit in moral reasoning?  And the answer is yes, though we are so used to thinking of morality as self-denial, that the notion that the moral life could be a profitable life is foreign to us.  Yet this is actually the classical perspective as Wild points out:

 

“This conception of a radical opposition between duty and basic need is wholly foreign to Plato’s thought.  Virtue, what we ought to do, is not opposed to interest and happiness.  It is conceived as the proper functioning of an entity, acting well.  It is thus required for happiness and is an essential part of it.  Plato’s aim was not merely to attain inner peace and ‘imperturbability,’ but rather the complete realization of all the essential human faculties...” (Plato’s Modern Enemies and the Theory of Natural Law, p. 18)

 

and Wild reminds us that “...virtue is defined in the Meno as ‘the power of attaining what is good.’” (ibid, p. 144)

 

Item 8 R. G. Collingwood’s An Essay on Philosophical Method, is interesting from several perspectives, but primarily it is important here because of his discussion of the “Scale of Forms” and how, by applying it to a notion of a scale of forms of Humanity, it mirrors a famous quote of Mencius and allows us to look at the moral stages of Lawrence Kohlberg in a new perspective.  I will quote Mencius within a longer quote from Tu Wei-ming, since this may help to put it in a perspective of human self-development.

 

“(Mencius says)’... the value of humanity depends on its being brought to maturity’ (6A.19).  In fact, on one occasion at least, Mencius even attempts to characterize a few perfected stages in poetic terms:

 

He who commands our liking is called good.

He who is sincere with himself is called true.

He who is sufficient and real is called beautiful.

He whose sufficiency and reality shine forth is called great.

He whose greatness transform itself is called sagely.

He whose sageliness is beyond our comprehension is called spiritual.

 

Undoubtedly, from the good to the spiritual there are numerous degrees of refinement.  Moral self-development so perceived is tantamount to an unceasing process of humanization.” (Humanity and Self-Cultivation, p. 68)

 

and it is this process of humanization which is the goal of the moral life conceived of as self-realization, a view that has a twenty-five hundred year history in both East and West, and a view that is founded on reason and independent of any particular religious revelation, but is compatible with the basic moral requirements of all revealed religions, and thus could be condemned by only the most close minded fundamentalist.  In an era of increasing sectarian strife it may be just the thing to help defuse some of the problems of a religiously diverse society.

 

[Yasjua]

You know there's a lot of bullshit in business, as well. Our system is rife with redundant bureaucratic procedures that have no moral or ethical reason to exist - they could even represent the opposite (i.e. corruption). Refusing participation in the system for 'ethical' reasons could just be naivete or idealism. I've heard you say it yourself, Scott, in multiple contexts, that participation and engagement with world affairs can be as important or even more important to spiritual growth than achieving some sort of inner status or spiritual stature. It may be that the whole orchestra (society) is mistuned, but it plays in harmony with itself. The money-employment-economic-political system has its own way of functioning, and it's okay to play in tune with it - I think when politics and business begin violating natural laws, harming the environment, or hurting people, that that is the time to withdraw or resist due to ethics - then it is okay to play out of tune. I think your turning the job down sounds a little inflexible, maybe even dogmatically rigid. If it were me I would've taken a closer look at why the procedure was as stated (prev. exp. past year) and made a judgment as to whether stepping over the red tape in this case was inherently wrong or just a kind of judicial inconvenience.

[Aetherous]

Refusing participation in the system for 'ethical' reasons could just be naivete or idealism.

 

I think your turning the job down sounds a little inflexible, maybe even dogmatically rigid.

 

These terms are good things to be when it comes to these types of situations, for people like me. Not everyone chooses the same type of life.

 

Without being prideful and pompous, I don't regret my choice...actually I'm very happy that the choice was clearly presented to me, because it's often hard to know right from wrong and I often make so many wrong choices...but I do feel the sting of missing out on that money, of course.

 

The sting is irrelevant to me, though.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

I've heard you say it yourself, Scott, in multiple contexts, that participation and engagement with world affairs can be as important or even more important to spiritual growth than achieving some sort of inner status or spiritual stature. (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

In my writing that I quoted above, I referenced Confucianism and Aetherous position is very Confucian. To a Confucian constructive engagement with the world is not merely a spiritual duty, it is part of ones self-realization. Because of this, Confucian's faced quandaries like this on a daily basis:

 

I've been looking for summer work, and just found the job of my dreams, which pays twice as much as I thought I could get. But a requirement for the job was having a year of experience in the past 3 years...when I personally had experience prior to that but not during that time. So the person hiring just said to ask a friend to say that I worked for them, and get the job.

 

I had to turn down the offer due to personal ethics, of having honor in business deals and not lying.  (Emphaisi mine, ZYD)

 

with possible consequences that would make simply not getting a job seem like a blessing.

 

Dealing with situations like this involve creativity and a certain type of verbal self-defense, for which Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), is a great preparation.  Here is one way to handle challenges like this:

 

“Well, lower level HR person, I am going to take your suggestion as a positive sign that you wish to hire me, and I would very much like to be hired and work for a company like this, where I think I could make a real contribution, but now I am wondering, by suggesting this are you testing my integrity, which I can completely understand, but I can't lie about this, much less ask a friend to do so, instead I would like to suggest some ways that we can work around this, and you and I and the company will all win. First of all, isn't the purpose of this requirement, to insure that required skills are fresh and available for use on the job? Well, here are six reasons why my experience in the past three years will actually help me to work better, . . . (insert six good reasons here) . . ., now if bearing this in mind you still think I would make a good fit in this company, and you would to hire me, but are concerned about making the choice yourself, is it possible to kick this upstairs, and maybe win the gratitude of your supervisors?”

 

First of all your six, or however many reasons, should be good ones which you believe, and convincing ones also, which will impress the HR person.  If nothing else, demonstrating creativity and adaptability will impress the interviewer, and make you seem more valuable.

 

I think the general idea is clear enough. In this way one maintains ones personal integrity and invites the other person to help solve a problem that will benefit both of them and the company. With a little thought it becomes possible to “reframe” the situation in ways that maintain integrity and further oneself and others too. On the other hand if the HR person, said, “Well, no, we actually expect you to lie for us and I am testing to see if you will”, then I think you would be better off refusing the job anyway.

 

 

 

Edit: I realized that I hadn't emphasized the part about the HR person suggesting the lying, so I did so.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Zhongyongdaoist

[forestofclarity]

I think the point of ethics is to free us from the tyranny of the desires of the small self. The small self will always find a million reasons why ethics don't apply when it they are inconvenient. While it may seem binding to follow ethics, I find the ethical path is in fact far less binding than the path of subjugation to dictates of the small self. 

[Aetherous]

I find the ethical path is in fact far less binding than the path of subjugation to dictates of the small self. 

 

Absolutely. It may not seem so immediately (getting drunk is awesome fun!), but with reflection we can see this truth (hangoversssss).

Edited June 25, 2015 by Aetherous

[Aetherous]

with possible consequences that would make simply not getting a job seem like a blessing.

 

Very true!

 

Dealing with situations like this involve creativity and a certain type of verbal self-defense, for which Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), is a great preparation.  Here is one way to handle challenges like this:

 

I'm always working on the ability to think on my feet like that...one of my weaknesses is that I have a very hard time with it.

 

Actually, in the moment I said something like, "well, okay, I will find a friend to do it"...I had one in mind who most likely would (always nice to have friends in low places)...and only later after the initial excitement wore off, did I realize that this was a sort of test in my spiritual path and I could either choose the path, or not...so immediately contacted her again to say that I can't ask someone to lie for me.

 

It's good to have your wits about you, and mine usually aren't, unfortunately.

[SonOfTheGods]

Do the animal, mineral and plant kingdom have ethics?

 

Do they have a religion?

 

Does it make them inferior to us, because we can invent a personal code?

 

At the end of the day, the lion eats the gazelle, and the sun contines to rise.

 

 

A worthy personal code is Survival

 

The animal, mineral and plant kingdom have that one, I'd bet

[Bud Jetsun]

"Laws" man can break are not.  

 

What some call "laws" are someones ego construct delusion in droplets of ink on paper.  If one recognizes them as such they become someone else's construct delusion alone.  I let others keep their delusions to themselves.

 

Your ethics aren't a tangible thing, belief in them is equally real/useful as any belief (exclusively delusion). 

 

You pilot your own body from the 1st person view peeking out your eyeballs.  If you choose at each moment of Now to do what is most kind and loving to all living beings, it is realized instantly as it's own best reward through your personal witnessing that beautiful way of living. 

 

Violating "rule" delusions men make isn't immoral or unethical, it's often the contrary.  Nobody else can mandate living in kindness for you, nobody else can live with generosity for you, nobody else can enjoy your life experiences for you, and nobody else can be ethical for you, nor can one live with anyone else's definition of ethical. 

 

Regarding a job and money, money is a pursuit of a number that is an unending human construct sequence.  If you make obtaining money an objective, it's an inherently rigged game, as no amount results in success criteria.  If you are able to read this, you have plenty.  

 

When I have more money than I need to buy fruit to eat, I give it away to anyone else who looks hungry at that moment.  This is the best use I've found for money. 

 

With Unlimited Love,

-Bud

[Aetherous]

A worthy personal code is Survival

 

The animal, mineral and plant kingdom have that one, I'd bet

 

I agree that's a great code for everyone to follow.

[dust]

edit: just saw Bud's comment above. He said it much better! Oh well.

 

 

Morality is just a concept. It's not real. It's a tool we've created out of apparent necessity, and one that many know how to use to their advantage.

 

Having a moral code is, in my opinion, silly. Better is to be compassionate, to be able to see what will cause desirable and undesirable results, and choose based on circumstance and one's intuition.

 

If you were the best man for the job, or at least capable of doing it, and if everyone would have benefited from your getting it, why continue this moral game of self-imposed rules and regulations that benefits nobody?

 

On the other hand, if you know you're not going to be particularly good at the job, or you're only going to stick it out for a week before you quit, or any other action that produces results that people are not going to appreciate or that might end up hurting your chances of getting a future job etc, then it might be a different story...

Edited June 26, 2015 by dustybeijing

[Aetherous]

If you were the best man for the job, or at least capable of doing it, and if everyone would have benefited from your getting it, why continue this moral game of self-imposed rules and regulations that benefits nobody?

 

I disagree that it benefits no one...morality benefits everyone, despite immediate appearances.

[dust]

For me, that depends on the strictness of the morality one is choosing. In theory, one could create a moral code which states that murder is right and relieving suffering is wrong. I'm sure there have been cultures where eating other people was considered correct, right? It's all a choice, all created by us.

 

If your moral code says "It is always bad to tell a lie", and then the fate of the world comes to rest on your telling of a lie, and you don't, because it's against your moral code... well, unless everyone feels that they have benefited purely by the code itself being honoured, and the fate of the world is less important than that, I would say that the moral code is at fault. Such a strict code cannot prepare one for every eventuality.

 

On the other hand, if your morality says something like "I must always try to do what I believe will cause the least suffering, whilst acknowledging that suffering is inevitable as long as there is life in the universe", you'll probably be OK.

Edited June 26, 2015 by dustybeijing

[Ya Mu]

I disagree that it benefits no one...morality benefits everyone, despite immediate appearances.

I agree.

In your example, whether or not it made a difference in the overall scheme of things, it sure as heck made a difference in you. Being true to oneself is one of the greatest accomplishments. My hat if off to you, sir. If we lie to ourselves about one thing, just how many illusions can we build upon that lie? I'll answer that - endless.

[forestofclarity]

I think there is a lot of confusion these days between acting naturally and acting according to one's personal desires. Looking at the Tao Te Ching, Laozi tells us that ethics arise when the natural way is lost. In a sense, one can see that following the ethical principles laid down by the sages as a way to recover what we've lost. One the natural state is recovered, ethics are not necessary. But only once the natural state is recovered. 

 

If one has trained in awareness, then one knows that our actions impact not only others, but ourselves. And not just in a vague way. There are specific physical and mental changes that occur when one acts ethically. Other physical and mental change occur when one does not act ethically. Typically what I've seen is that ethical behavior opens one up to the world and positive energies. It leads to increased relaxation, physical well being, knowledge, and connection. Unethical behavior tends to foster ignorance, tightening, closing off, numbing.  

[Apech]

many on here seem to be saying that ethics are just a concept and so on.  I think this misses the point.  If you do any kind of cultivation then ethics are part of that.  You can't for instance work with energy successfully unless you have personal integrity.  Similarly you can't conserve energy unless you renounce worldly values.  It's all part of one process ultimately.  If you lie then you set up inner contradictions which disrupt your subtle body (I'm not talking about white lies to be nice to someone but lies aimed at personal gain).  No one is perfect and sooner or later you make mistakes and fortunately most systems have ways of repairing them.  

[Zhongyongdaoist]

I think there is a lot of confusion these days between acting naturally and acting according to one's personal desires. Looking at the Tao Te Ching, Laozi tells us that ethics arise when the natural way is lost. In a sense, one can see that following the ethical principles laid down by the sages as a way to recover what we've lost. One the natural state is recovered, ethics are not necessary. But only once the natural state is recovered.

 

If one has trained in awareness, then one knows that our actions impact not only others, but ourselves. And not just in a vague way. There are specific physical and mental changes that occur when one acts ethically. Other physical and mental change occur when one does not act ethically. Typically what I've seen is that ethical behavior opens one up to the world and positive energies. It leads to increased relaxation, physical well being, knowledge, and connection. Unethical behavior tends to foster ignorance, tightening, closing off, numbing. (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

Here is an example of what forestofemptiness is talking about from Mencius, which I posted in the thread on Confucian Qi gong:

 

 

As I have noted, I will post as time permits and I don't have a lot of spare time right now, but the following is one of the earliest surviving mentions of Qigong in Chinese literature and is from Mencius, the 'second sage' of Confucianism:

 

2A:2

“May I ask in what it is that you are superior?”

曰、「我知言、我善養吾浩然之氣。」

“I understand language, and I am good at nourishing my vast qi.”

「敢問何謂浩然之氣。」

“What do you mean by ‘vast qi’”?

曰、「難言也。」 「其爲氣也、至大至剛以直 養而無害、則塞于天地之間。其爲氣也、配義與道無是、餒矣。是集義所生者、非義襲而取之也。行有不慊於心、則餒矣。我故曰、『吿子未嘗知義、』以其外之 也。必有事焉而勿正、心勿忘、勿助長也。無若宋人然。宋人有閔其苗之不長而揠之者芒芒然歸、謂其人曰、;『今日病矣、豫助苗長矣。』其子趨而往視之、苗則 槁矣。天下之不助苗長者寡矣。以爲無益而舍之者、不耘苗者也。助之長者、揠苗者也。非徒無益、而又害之。」

“That is difficult to explain. qi can be developed to great levels of quantity and stability by correctly nourishing it and not damaging it, to the extent that it fills the space between Heaven and Earth. In developing qi, if you are connected with Justice and the Way, you will never be in want of it. It is something that is produced by accumulating Justice, and is not something that you can grab from superficial attempts at Justice. If you act without mental composure, you will become qi-starved.”

 

“Therefore I would say that Gao Zi has not yet understood Justice, since he regards it as something external. You must be willing to work at it, understanding that you cannot have precise control over it. You can't forget about it, but you can't force it to grow, either.”

 

“You don't want to be like the man from Song. There was a man from Song who was worried about the slow growth of his crops and so he went and yanked on them to accelerate their growth. Empty-headed, he returned home and announced to his people: ‘I am so tired today. I have been out stretching the crops.’ His son ran out to look, but the crops had already withered. Those in the world who don't ‘help their crops by pulling’ are few indeed. There are also those who regard all effort as wasteful and don't even weed their crops. But those who think they can hurry their growth along by forcing it, are not only not helping their qi, but actually harming it!” (Translated by Charles Muller, http://www.acmuller....cius.html#div-4, Emphasis mine, ZYD)  (I have added extra emphasis for the sake of this post, ZYD)

 

One of the reason's why I try to avoid participating in discussions like this is because they are filled with people who are trying to de-invent the wheel.  Everything that they say about moral relativism, etc. has already been said, considered, and refuted in books such as I refer to in my post nine above and I don't have the time to spend recounting those discussions in detail, also even some of the discussion in my commentary calls into question the anti-moral arguments that have been put forward here, as even the title of the book list "Core books for an Ethics of Self-Realization", points beyond many of the objections that have been raised here.