Moral Truth.

[helpfuldemon]

A big part of philosophy is discovering morality and ethics.  In Magick, it is left up to the individual to decide what those are.  The magician declares their moral truth and acts upon their Will.  Sure there is a lot of mysticism involved in discovering truth, but what it boils down to is the Truth itself is what is important.  Some people say that there is no moral Truth while others have only partial truths to act upon.  I've heard it said that there is no correct way of action, that no one can know the outcome of action and that it is simply Do What Thou Wilt.  However, we live in a society where we must co-operate with one another, and we must maintain order so that things can get accomplished.  In this society, we have laws that protect people from wrong action, but lately it seems like people are getting accused of wrong action to the extreme.  We live in a cancel culture, and it is worrisome that some of these accusations are unjust.  It is also notable that a lot of the crimes we see people being prosecuted for come without physical evidence and rely on a persons word.

 

So what is the truth about morals and Law?  We certainly need righteousness, but how do we know what it is?  It seems we are mid-stream, without even knowing from where Law flows.  

 

I propose that morality is based on harming another person.  We must abstain from harming another person's health, wealth and liberty.  These are the goods to which every person has a right to possess.  

 

Health is a tricky topic, for we have all kinds of faculties that require a healthy  state.  Mental health, physical health, emotional health, Ego health.  All of these matter, and we must define them, and what causes the harm to them.

 

Wealth is more easily understood.  What you own and what you can earn, it's that simple.  Yes, taxes are a necessary Evil.

 

Liberty is the right to do what you will, so long as it doesn't harm another persons health, wealth and liberty.  We have a long ways to go before we have pure freedom, with old world moral conventions still active in our societies framework.

 

One wants to be on the side of righteousness, because it is the side of Truth.  We want a just society that protects us, and allows for us to Do What We Will.

[wandelaar]

1 hour ago, helpfuldemon said:

Wealth is more easily understood.  What you own and what you can earn, it's that simple.  Yes, taxes are a necessary Evil.

 

No - wealth is the hardest thing to morally comprehend: why should one person own a hundred or a thousand times as much as the average Joe? Is that because such a person also contributes a hundred or a thousand times as much to society as the average Joe? Or is it rather because such a person has found a way (rightly or wrongly) to take a hundred or a thousand times as much from society as the average Joe? And there is also the gross inequality in wealth between different parts of the world. Are those living in poor countries undeserving of some decent measure of wealth? 

 

So - back to the drawing board demon!

Edited March 19, 2023 by wandelaar

[helpfuldemon]

In the past, countries have reaped wealth unjustly through war.  Now that the order is established, we have to watch for this.  

 

A person accumulates wealth from effort and intellect.  It is not unjust that a person who chose the right field to study or refine makes more, it is supply and demand.  Sure, what they pay the worker has to be adequate for that worker to live in security and happiness, and it is not done well here, but that is because there is an abundance of under skilled and under educated workers to exploit.  

[Cobie]

.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Cobie

[wandelaar]

As usual the crucial point is ignored. Supply and demand constitute an economic mechanism, not a moral one. And thus the results of a more of less free market are seldom morally justified. I can appreciate that those who expend more effort are better paid. But that neither explains nor justifies the huge differences in wealth we see today. But these are age-old discussions, suffice it to say that not seeing a moral problem here can only happen to the ideologically blinded or to those who didn't take the trouble to consider the issues at stake here.

Edited March 19, 2023 by wandelaar

[helpfuldemon]

On what moral ground do you find that the difference between value of a cashier and a programmer is immoral?  What is the morality behind your observation?

[wandelaar]

I consider a difference in wages such that one person can earn a hundred, a thousand or even more times the wage of the average Joe as immoral. Why? Because it's inconceivable that persons with those kind of incomes would have expended a hundred, a thousandth or even more times more effort in doing their job than the average Joe. One could here point at military staff, the police, firemen, etc. who could even loose their lives in doing their job, but even those people don't earn the wages I am talking about. There is also the question of the quality of the work that's being done, but doing high quality work isn't a chore so there is no moral reason to pay even that kind of work with extreme wages. All in all the extreme incomes we are talking about here are more likely the result of sheer luck, robbery, con games, supply and demand quirks, happy investments, old boys networks, etc.

 

Now what's so wrong about those extreme differences in wages? Apart from the fact that this supplies some people with way more income than they reasonably need and other with less than they need, there is the fact that those differences create an enormous inequality in social, economical and political power between the haves and the have nots. And that doesn't bode well for the future of liberal democratic systems. The extreme inequalities in income aren't even necessary economically to have a flourishing economy. Countries with a more egalitarian economy are doing just as well.

 

But enough of this! I know the complete futility of political discussions, where facts and logic seldom matter.

Edited March 21, 2023 by wandelaar

[Taoist Texts]

1 hour ago, helpfuldemon said:

What is the morality behind your observation?

greed

[Cobie]

.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Cobie

[Nungali]

7 hours ago, wandelaar said:

 

No - wealth is the hardest thing to morally comprehend: why should one person own a hundred or a thousand times as much as the average Joe? Is that because such a person also contributes a hundred or a thousand times as much to society as the average Joe?

 

NO WAY !   Our most important workers  ( nurses, paramedics, firemen , police, etc . )  are some of the  most underpaid ... the most scrupulous  have the  larger amount of money under control .

 

 

 

7 hours ago, wandelaar said:

Or is it rather because such a person has found a way (rightly or wrongly) to take a hundred or a thousand times as much from society as the average Joe?

 

Mea culpa ....   you just cant keep your head above water comfortably  by merely working for money .... it doesnt generate  enough .

 

 

7 hours ago, wandelaar said:

 

And there is also the gross inequality in wealth between different parts of the world. Are those living in poor countries undeserving of some decent measure of wealth? 

 

They are often seen  as undeserving or having 'bad karma '  .... by those who have more    

 

 

 

7 hours ago, wandelaar said:

 

So - back to the drawing board demon!

 

 

Its just nuts !    A HUGE load of money got injected into my account , I didnt work for it or earn it or anything like that , so I could not really comprehend its value. But it means I can go to 'the hole in the wall'  and  type in a code and money spits out . 

 

One thing  you can do   though ....  try dropping a  50 note occasionally into a paper cup  , make someone happy for a day .   And they will take it  without 'stuff' .   I tried sharing some with friends but there was all this stuff associated with it  ....  they thought they would have to reciprocate in some way , or that I would regret it later or something  , or that I was secretly tabulating how many coffees or meals I paid for for them  or  ..... wtf , I dont know .

[Nungali]

7 hours ago, helpfuldemon said:

In the past, countries have reaped wealth unjustly through war.  Now that the order is established, we have to watch for this.  

 

A person accumulates wealth from effort and intellect.

 

Nah , that not gonna create real wealth ... for 'sufficient' wealth   .....  Magick !

 

7 hours ago, helpfuldemon said:

 

  It is not unjust that a person who chose the right field to study or refine makes more, it is supply and demand. 

 

Oh ? So, you are an 'economic rationalist capitalist'  ,  eh ? 

 

 

7 hours ago, helpfuldemon said:

 

 

 

Sure, what they pay the worker has to be adequate for that worker to live in security and happiness, and it is not done well here, but that is because there is an abundance of under skilled and under educated workers to exploit.  

 

[Nungali]

6 hours ago, wandelaar said:

As usual the crucial point is ignored. Supply and demand constitute an economic mechanism, not a moral one. And thus the results of a more of less free market are seldom morally justified. I can appreciate that those who expend more effort are better paid. But that neither explains nor justifies the huge differences in wealth we see today. But these are age-old discussions, suffice it to say that not seeing a moral problem here can only happen to the ideologically blinded or to those who didn't take the trouble to consider the issues at stake here.

 

Not only that he didnt even consider the issue that he started off with , that is ,   " A big part of philosophy is discovering morality and ethics.  In Magick, it is left up to the individual to decide what those are.  The magician declares their moral truth and acts upon their Will."

 

This is entirely WRONG AND FALSE , and only applies to 'self appointed magician guru enlightened delusionals '  and Chaos Magicians ( same thing really ) .

 

I can affirm my magical training CERTAINLY required me to not only  learn about , but to take magical oaths regarding  morality and ethics . Actually , previous to that I had not encountered a system so 'interested' in not just ethics but actual actions in ethics as opposed to just empty words saying and writings ... ie it has to be put into practice .

[helpfuldemon]

8 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Not only that he didnt even consider the issue that he started off with , that is ,   " A big part of philosophy is discovering morality and ethics.  In Magick, it is left up to the individual to decide what those are.  The magician declares their moral truth and acts upon their Will."

 

This is entirely WRONG AND FALSE , and only applies to 'self appointed magician guru enlightened delusionals '  and Chaos Magicians ( same thing really ) .

 

I can affirm my magical training CERTAINLY required me to not only  learn about , but to take magical oaths regarding  morality and ethics . Actually , previous to that I had not encountered a system so 'interested' in not just ethics but actual actions in ethics as opposed to just empty words saying and writings ... ie it has to be put into practice .

So here you seem to be advocating for One True Will, One True Morality.  Perhaps you can enlighten us on the moral laws you found and what they are based upon?

[helpfuldemon]

12 hours ago, wandelaar said:

I consider a difference in wages such that one person can earn a hundred, a thousand or even more times the wage of the average Joe as immoral. Why? Because it's inconceivable that persons with those kind of incomes would have expended a hundred, a thousandth or even more times more effort in doing their job than the average Joe. One could here point at military staff, the police, firemen, etc. who could even loose their lives in doing their job, but even those people don't earn the wages I am talking about. There is also the question of the quality of the work that's being done, but doing high quality work isn't a chore so there is no moral reason to pay even that kind of work with extreme wages. All in all the extreme incomes we are talking about here are more likely the result of sheer luck, robbery, con games, supply and demand quirks, happy investments, old boys networks, etc.

 

Now what so wrong about those extreme differences in wages? Apart from the fact that this supplies some people with way more income than they reasonably need and other with less than they need, there is the fact that those differences create an enormous inequality in social, economical and political power between the haves and the have nots. And that doesn't bode well for the future of liberal democratic systems. The extreme inequalities in income aren't even necessary economically to have a flourishing economy. Countries with a more egalitarian economy are doing just as well.

 

But enough of this! I know the complete futility of political discussions, where facts and logic seldom matter.

you still didn't define the moral ground for why a person should be paid evenly with the other and not with higher wages.  If it isn't quality of work, or effort put in, then what do we base the value of labor on?  It comes down to the price of things and the cost of the training to do the task.  It also comes down to the ability to perform the task.  Not everyone can do these things and so they are paid more for them.  You'd be better off arguing about the price of things and the morality behind the cost than to debate the value of intellect, education, effort and ability of the laborer.  Is it moral to charge such high prices for things that are produced?  Is it moral to pay less for things of less value?  I agree that it seems unjust that some people make so much more, but how do we resolve this?  The cost of education and the value of the individual has to come into context when considering the wage. 

[wandelaar]

As I said before I am not going to argue any more about this. If you don't see a moral problem in huge differences in wages that have no connection to the amount of effort put into the work by those who earn those wages, than that's the end of it. Furthermore you are simply ignoring the societal costs and political dangers of the huge gap between the haves and the have nots. I like to see people treated equally, whenever possible. That also implies that hard working people deserve better wages than those whose with easy jobs. You apparently couldn't care less. But morality cannot be based on facts alone, there will have to be some ultimate intuitions about what's wrong and what's right or else nothing concerning morals can be proven or reasoned about. But if you don't care about equality as a moral principle than naturally my arguments are empty words to you. I cannot disprove your position, and you cannot disprove mine. And that's the end of it.

[helpfuldemon]

10 hours ago, wandelaar said:

As I said before I am not going to argue any more about this. If you don't see a moral problem in huge differences in wages that have no connection to the amount of effort put into the work by those who earn those wages, than that's the end of it. Furthermore you are simply ignoring the societal costs and political dangers of the huge gap between the haves and the have nots. I like to see people treated equally, whenever possible. That also implies that hard working people deserve better wages than those whose with easy jobs. You apparently couldn't care less. But morality cannot be based on facts alone, there will have to be some ultimate intuitions about what's wrong and what's right or else nothing concerning morals can be proven or reasoned about. But if you don't care about equality as a moral principle than naturally my arguments are empty words to you. I cannot disprove your position, and you cannot disprove mine. And that's the end of it.

I agree with you about this.  I think it is immoral to place a higher value on someone over someone else.  But, getting back to my original point; it is immoral to harm another person's wealth or their right to earn their wealth.  Placing a limit on their wealth is another matter.  

Edited March 20, 2023 by helpfuldemon

[Nungali]

15 hours ago, helpfuldemon said:

So here you seem to be advocating for One True Will, One True Morality.  Perhaps you can enlighten us on the moral laws you found and what they are based upon?

 

I have done that several times in threads you started , I explained them and why and posted up the  documents . This isnt the first time you have asked this either .  Not the first time this happened either , fopr you not to know about it, after several communications about that is indicative of ( yet another ) problem .

 

  One week you know about it, the next you dont , one week you 'hate God' the next you dont , one week you have given up on magick , the next its your prime philosophy . I have glven up trying to show you or explain things , I merely correct you now  for the advantage of  new or naive readers that might think  things like ;   one can practice magick successfully and develop your own morals and ethics or have none or 'decide them by an act of will ' ... or other excuses .

 

Just like anyone would correct another in another forum here ... say on yoga or pranayama if someone was telling people , 'sprouting ' or 'teaching '   to   hold your breath and count to 5000 .

 

If you dont like that , you can get a personal page / bloggy thing and post whatever you like there .

[helpfuldemon]

Oh I got confused.  I was arguing with other Thelemites about there having to be One True Will for All if there is such a thing of True Will.  I no longer believe this to be the case though, or if it is, it is hard to find.

[helpfuldemon]

On 3/19/2023 at 10:54 AM, wandelaar said:

As usual the crucial point is ignored. Supply and demand constitute an economic mechanism, not a moral one. And thus the results of a more of less free market are seldom morally justified. I can appreciate that those who expend more effort are better paid. But that neither explains nor justifies the huge differences in wealth we see today. But these are age-old discussions, suffice it to say that not seeing a moral problem here can only happen to the ideologically blinded or to those who didn't take the trouble to consider the issues at stake here.

After thinking about this more, I'm inclined to say that placing a value of one person over the value of another is probably the leading cause of all the troubles in this world.  Our materialistic society separates one from another and holds some worthless while others valuable.  This starts at a young age and continues on throughout life.  

[Cobie]

.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Cobie

[Nungali]

7 hours ago, helpfuldemon said:

Oh I got confused.  I was arguing with other Thelemites about there having to be One True Will for All if there is such a thing of True Will.  I no longer believe this to be the case though, or if it is, it is hard to find.

 

You got confused about who you where talking to ?  Even though you had my quote in the box you where typing your response to ?

 

Still .... that does not divert from the fact that  balanced magical training requires one 'do a course' on ethics and morality .  Which, by the way are seen as  two entirely different things . Magical training clearly separates them , religious indoctrination tries to blend them together.

Edited March 21, 2023 by Nungali

[helpfuldemon]

17 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

You got confused about who you where talking to ?  Even though you had my quote in the box you where typing your response to ?

 

Still .... that does not divert from the fact that  balanced magical training requires one 'do a course' on ethics and morality .  Which, by the way are seen as  two entirely different things . Magical training clearly separates them , religious indoctrination tries to blend them together.

If we're talking about Magick, as in Crowely's writings, he didn't leave much in the way of moral training for his students.  He said to liberate yourself from inhibitions, he said to regard your fellow human beings as stars, but he also said to "lie, cheat and steal from your neighbor".  

Edited March 22, 2023 by helpfuldemon

[Nungali]

What ... like you are lying now ?

 

Crowley never said that .  If you insist he did , quote and cite , as simple as that . Again you making it up to try and  justify your current mood .

 

Morals and ethics are different fish - look it up .  Crowley has many books / papers  published regarding the subject and each degree ceremony, some to a large extent,   have ethical instructions in them .  

 

Even by simple outward  definition  a fraternity  must have an ethical code , or  it isnt a fraternity .  -  and in case you didnt realize ,  the magical groups Crowley was in or ran where fraternal organizations.

[helpfuldemon]

It's written in Liber Aleph, one of his missives say that you can lie, cheat, steal from your neighbor, but don't degrade his honor, or something like that.  I tried to find the passage but my kindle wouldn't find it and I don't feel like paging through the whole book to find it.  

 

Crowley's ethical code was freedom, and that is what bound his fraternities.   He tried to tie in honor for your enemies and allies, that was about it.  His God was Chaos, and liberty, and he didn't structure any more moral code to action.  The word of Sin is restriction, and he felt that people should do what is in their nature to do, and that they would learn what not to do by the result.

[Nungali]

Oh rubbish !   Look, go read Liber Librae .... for a start / I must have posted that up here , including for you , over 10 times !