Does the Zhuangzi promote moral relativism?

[morning dew]

On the one hand, the Zhuangzi seems to value some of the three treasures (compassion, conservation and humility) of the TTC. It seems in favour of conservation/wu wei (Cook Ding springs to mind). Also, it seems to use a lot of stories (from what I can remember) about  'humble' people (people with low status jobs and disabilities). I'm not sure how much compassion features in the Zhuangzi?

 

On the other hand, even as early as section 1, there seem to be all sorts of examples of moral relativism going on:

 

'He [P'eng] beats the whirlwind, leaps into the air, and rises up ninety thousand li, cutting through the clouds and mist, shouldering the blue sky, and then he turns his eyes south and prepares to journey to the southern darkness.

The little quail laughs at him, saying, "Where does he think he's going? I give a great leap and fly up, but I never get more than ten or twelve yards before I come down fluttering among the weeds and brambles. And that's the best kind of flying anyway! Where does he think he's going?" Such is the difference between big and little.

Therefore a man who has wisdom enough to fill one office effectively, good conduct enough to impress one community, virtue enough to please one ruler, or talent enough to be called into service in one state, has the same kind of self-pride as these little creatures.'

 

'A man of Sung who sold ceremonial hats made a trip to Yueh, but the Yueh people cut their hair short and tattoo their bodies and had no use for such things.'

 

Is it fair to say the Zhuangzi promotes certain values but not universal commandments of 'good' and 'evil'? Could the text have replaced Cook Ding with Assassin Ding or even Serial Killer Ding and kept its frame, assuming they were all equally skilled/efficient at carving up meat?


 

[dust]

Can I go further? To make an argument that ZZ doesn't promote 'morals' or 'values' so much a few basic 'principles' that, if understood, might be helpful in... living with more enjoyment?

 

Certainly it doesn't promote anything like the kind of 'good' and 'evil' that we see in many other texts and philosophies.

[Stosh]

He presents perspective which may indeed lead to an attitude described as a form of moral relativism, but the point, straight forwardly ,is providing clear perspective , universally good, rather than promote yet another -ism. Universal goodness extends to the serial killer, or sniper or soldier or monk, likewise, some just need more improvement to be acceptable at large constituting greater threat.

[Marblehead]

Everything is relative.

 

(Our moral values may be arguable.)

[morning dew]

Can I go further? To make an argument that ZZ doesn't promote 'morals' or 'values' so much a few basic 'principles' that, if understood, might be helpful in... living with more enjoyment?

 

Certainly it doesn't promote anything like the kind of 'good' and 'evil' that we see in many other texts and philosophies.

 

Yeah, I think that's fair enough. After some pondering, I'd say he comes across more as a (decent) stand-up comic rather than a preacher or an activist.

[morning dew]

He presents perspective which may indeed lead to an attitude described as a form of moral relativism, but the point, straight forwardly ,is providing clear perspective , universally good, rather than promote yet another -ism. Universal goodness extends to the serial killer, or sniper or soldier or monk, likewise, some just need more improvement to be acceptable at large constituting greater threat.

 

Okay, I think I understood this. So you're saying ZZ might favour Cook Ding over Assassin/Serial Killer Ding, not because Cook Ding is necessarily morally superior or 'good/not evil', but because being Cook Ding is more efficient and conserves more energy than Assassin/Serial Killer Ding, who would waste extra effort struggling to hide their nature and/or fit in with society, etc, while also spending energy training in their 'profession'.

Edited April 3, 2017 by morning dew

[morning dew]

Everything is relative.

 

(Our moral values may be arguable.)

 

Yeah, that's kind of the conclusion I came to. It's probably why I enjoy ZZ so much – plus I find him very funny.

[Marblehead]

– plus I find him very funny.

 

Yeah, there is a lot of humor in the Chuang Tzu, we just have to remain rather open-minded in order to notice it.

[Stosh]

Okay, I think I understood this. So you're saying ZZ might favour Cook Ding over Assassin/Serial Killer Ding, not because Cook Ding is necessarily morally superior or 'good/not evil', but because being Cook Ding is more efficient and conserves more energy than Assassin/Serial Killer Ding, who would waste extra effort struggling to hide their nature and/or fit in with society, etc, while also spending energy training in their 'profession'.

Not so much that I was thinking so , but its a reasonable conclusion for you to come to.( initially)  

I was aiming more that whatever lessons or admirable characteristics anyone had as a result of gaining insight and wisdom, they would actually still have regardless of my moral judgement or societal concern they might also engender. 

(I've known some hard folks that I in fact like a lot ,  and some 'saints' I cant stand.)

The texts can't, in themselves ,discriminate on how the information will be used or by whom .

The sun shines, or text sheds light ,which has to be mirrored in the reader to be accurate to the intent of the author.

My resolution of this issue, though it could indeed be construed as simply 'efficiency as virtue ',,  is that the author Must believe that men at the core are actually good. 

Its a fundamental belief you have to have , if you are going to tell people to revert to their original nature ,( thinking this will actually be helpful to mankind). Or you are simply escalating the effectiveness of some of your readers at being destructive etc etc.

If you believe that men at the core have a lot of commonality, and that its the circumstance they find themselves in which is deficient for satisfying their spirit , and that if they were indeed satisfied and at peace, they would no longer lash out or have cause to be hostile, then to the extent that they were able to find the peace etc , you'd be effective at reducing the hostilities. 

I've been told that some believe there are others so screwed up that the only cure for them is an end.. and by another ,,that the core of man is really just a nasty brutish animal with wits. And by yet another , that mankind is just the most stupid self destructive creature ever to exist. I personally don't know who I agree with most though.., I would like to believe that mankind is special and has a thing which I can value. 

 

All I can come up with is that we can create what doesnt exist because we can see what is and is not real, and we can consider things in a way which is not entirely with respect to our own well being because we can have empathy. 

Edited April 3, 2017 by Stosh

[morning dew]

Good post. You bring up some interesting thoughts.

 

Human/original nature: yeah, I agree, there are many different perspectives on this. It's been a long time since I've looked at things like neuroscience, so I don't really have a fixed opinion. Right now, if I had to guess, I'd say it's probable that there are individual (brain) differences from birth for humans, and that early childhood traumas and deprivations (physical or emotional) can permanently damage people. Having said that, I'd agree most people probably do have empathy to some degree otherwise society would just collapse.

 

Maybe the author(s) thought there were enough people with 'good' original nature to justify writing/compiling the Zhuangzi, even if a few people with 'bad' original nature came across it and read it? I'm not sure. I get the impression some Eastern systems like Buddhism tend to treat people mainly like blank slates (when it comes to dysfunction) with an initial 'good' core/setting when they are born. I wasn't really sure what Daoists thought about this the matter (if there even is a consensus).

 

Another thing I was wondering about was how the Zhuangzi viewed reality/the Dao: is it some mindless mechanism or some kind of gigantic creature with no concept of or connection to human beings 'inside' it; or is it something that actually actively favours or cares about humans, is aware of them and has some sort of moral code? I got the impression it was more the former than the latter.

Edited April 5, 2017 by morning dew

[Stosh]

Yeah, maybe he just figured those who would get the message ,would , and those who wouldn't , wouldn't. .. 

I was sitting out back one morning , and saw a squirrel go down a bald cypress tree, and up into another, two cardinals were freaking out.

From the nest , the squirrel took a cheeping baby cardinal chick ,she turned it ass end up and ate it live ,like a burrito. 

The next day , the same thing happened again , and on the third day once more.

All the chicks were gone. 

It Doesn't seem to me like the Universe did any 'stepping in' to save the chicks,

nor did it thwart the squirrel into having to eat bald cypress 'cones' which are all gooey and have little food value. 

Go to a children's ward at a hospital , and you will get a distinct view that there isn't anything 'looking out' for humans but other humans. No cardinals stopping by to check on the kids , no squirrels dropping off acorns for the needy, the sun was not mitigating its harsh glare through the windows. 

Edited April 5, 2017 by Stosh

[morning dew]

Yeah, this was basically why I abandoned Christianity at the end of my teenage years. I couldn't get past the 'problem of evil', the problem of reconciling what was going on in reality compared to the description of God in the New Testament.

[Stosh]

Me too ,but though even children regularly see this umm issue, ,if the kid is influenced enough to overlook it, they are presented with a simple system of rules that they can follow ,at least. Fancier ideas like moral relativism , to a degree , relies on this kind of socialization to be in place, and if in the end the kid goes towards this more complicated view, its not impossible to come to a new view of God, which does make sense.

I. decided that if god was good ,as described, then he would understand that the evidence he couldve provided, being absent, rendered me , quite reasonably ,in grave doubt about the church,, Or even entire disbelief in God himself. I didnt envision god as petty ,spiteful, obfuscating.

[morning dew]

Yeah, that's fair enough. I think the days of there being only two positions – (biblical/literal) Christianity vs (materialist/Darwinian) atheism – are long gone, especially now the Internet has arisen and everybody is sharing their thoughts.

 

These days I entertain all sorts of frameworks, some contradictory; my focus is on utility and results rather than discovering 'The (Ultimate) Truth' through language. Sometimes, I even entertain the notion that I'm a butterfly dreaming and talking to people on forums via a thing called the Internet.

Edited April 7, 2017 by morning dew