Philosophy, ethics, and your thoughts

Thank you HiddenX. I was having a problem with the concepts of morals and ethics and was struggling with the difference.

What prompted the start of this thread was that some studies were done that found that people would react differently when confronted with those in need depending upon the situation. Seminary students were told that they were late, that they should be in a hurry, and with this suggestion would not stop to help a person in need. People in front of a bakery were more inclined to help than those in front of a dry goods store, supposing that you are more willing to help if you are in a good mood. Maybe this is more situational morality as opposed to situational ethics?
 
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Messages
171
Location
Austin, Texas
A modern master once advised on of his students to get an abortion. When asked about this later his response was: "I may burn in hell for this, but I thought it was the right thing to do for this young woman."
The point being that considering the retribution or reward we receive for a particular action, or a rule (not to take life), should not be the sole criteria for our decisions.

That's one of my problems with Christianity. I'm no expert, so there may be other reasons that Christians uphold their ideas of morality, but it seems like to me that it's the threat of eternal damnation that is the impetus to live a moral life. I sometimes wonder why most people maintain their sense of right and wrong. Is it because of self actualization; the fear of what other will think; the fear of punishment? Like most things involving humanity, it's probably complex and is a combination of factors.
 
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Messages
171
Location
Austin, Texas
Fear of burning in Hell, is ONE reason why SOME people are Christians. For me, living correctly is more important and I find the Christian life to be the best following the 2 Great commandments. The second is the one more applicable here:- Love your neighbour as yourself. It's sometimes rendered Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Either way, That is the CORE of my ethics.
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,825
Location
Australia
Love your neighbour as yourself. It's sometimes rendered Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Either way, That is the CORE of my ethics.
I quite agree - and this leads to another theory:

Real dangerous people are hating themselves and perhaps their current situation in life.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
20,013
Location
Germany
...living correctly is more important....
That's it, exactly. The value of ethics and morals is being challenged today like never before, IMO. And the Internet is working to confront and agitate that trend.

One could expect that what's best for living would be taught in schools, printed in newspapers or consistently agreed upon on worldwide forums. It's not, and that's a bizzarre fact of life.

Today's superstar values are education, science and knowledge. But haven't the wisest people who've ever lived sometimes balked at knowledge? Haven't they, in fact, often mocked the value of it?

This may all be headed in a different direction than the one we think.

The future will bring shocking and humbling realizations about our understanding of ourselves, IMO. Superstar status of tomorrow will belong more to ethics and morals than science and education. That's the real direction of progress.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
1,807
Location
Orange County, California
The religions all offer a purpose with a better death as reward.

Most societies have a cultural agreement of the purpose of life. Nations often have different goals. In the US there is the "American Dream" which basicly means getting successful. In Sweden it's usually refered to as "Villa, Volvo, Vovve" which translated means "Having a Villa, a Volvo and a Dog".

In Philosophy you have existentialism which is about living an "authentic life".

Many cultures still fail to sell a sense of purpose though. Most of them focus on the individual rather than goals meant to help mankind. I do not believe this is beneficial to us as a species. The future of mankind and this planet really should be the highest value told to kids. Doing your part for mankind is important, no matter how small it is. If you leave blood, if you donate money to the poor, if you focus on becoming the prophet of a new religion or focus on becoming the next Einstein you are doing something with your life.

The pleasure-driven life is a direct enemy to the purpose-driven life.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
The religions all offer a purpose with a better death as reward.
That's what some religions are all about, but shouldn't that be discussed in the other thread?
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
1,807
Location
Orange County, California
JM, you refer to life as being 'driven'. That to me conjures up an image of cattle being driven to slaughter!! How about life being LEAD by principles and ethics?
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,825
Location
Australia
The pleasure-driven life is a direct enemy to the purpose-driven life.

Oh! Now a Buddhist! :) I've studied Zen and Buddhism a bit, and basically what you stated above is what Buddhism proposes. Christmas Humphreys summarized Buddhist precepts for Western eyes with his 12 Principles of Buddhism. It seems to me that existentialists studied Buddhism because much of what they say holds to Buddhist principles.

1. Self salvation is for any man the immediate task. If a man lay wounded by a poisoned arrow he would not delay extraction by demanding details of the man who shot it or the length and make of the arrow. There will be time for ever-increasing understanding of the Teaching during the treading of the Way. Meanwhile, begin now by facing life as it is, learning always by direct and personal experience.

2. The first fact of existence is the law of change or impermanence. All that exists, from a mole to a mountain, from a thought to an empire, passes through the same cycle of existence; birth, growth, decay and death. Life alone is continuous, ever seeking self-expression in new forms. “Life is a bridge; therefore build no house on it.” Life is a process of flow, and he who clings to any form, however splendid, will suffer by resisting the flow.

3. The law of change applies equally to the “soul”. There is no principle in an individual which is immortal and unchanging. Only the “Namelessness”, the Ultimate Reality, is beyond change, and all forms of life, including man, are manifestations of this Reality. No one owns the life which flows in him any more than the electric light bulb owns the current which gives it light.

4. The universe is the expression of law. All effects have causes, and man’s soul or character is the sum total of his previous thoughts and acts. Karma, meaning action-reaction, governs all existence, and man is the sole creator of his circumstances, and his reaction to them, his future condition and his final destiny. By right thought and action he can gradually purify his inner nature, and so by self-realization attain in time liberation from rebirth. The process covers great periods of time, involving life after life on earth, but ultimately every form of life will reach enlightenment.

5. Life is one and indivisible, though its ever-changing forms are innumerable and perishable. There is, in truth, no death, though every form must die. From an understanding of life’s unity arises compassion, a sense of identity with the life in other forms. Compassion is described as the “Law of laws-eternal harmony”, and he who breaks this harmony of life will suffer accordingly and delay his own enlightenment.

6. Life being One, the interests of the part should be those of the whole. In his ignorance man thinks he can successfully strive for his own interests, and his wrongly-directed energy of selfishness produces its cause. The Buddha taught four Noble Truths:

a) The omnipresence of suffering;

b) its cause, wrongly-directed desire;

c) its cure, the removal of the cause; and

d) the Noble Eightfold Path of self-development which leads to the end of suffering.

7. The Eightfold Path consists of: (1)Right Views or preliminary understanding, (2) Right Aims or Motives, (3) Right Speech, (4) Right Acts, (5) Right Livelihood, (6) Right Effort, (7) Right Concentration or mind-development, and, finally, (8) Right Samadhi, leading to full Enlightenment. As Buddhism is a way of living, not merely a theory of life, the treading of this Path is essential to self-deliverance. “Cease to do evil, learn to do good, cleanse your own heart: this is the Teaching of the Buddhas”.

8. Reality is incomprehensible, and a God with attributes is not the final Reality. But the Buddha, a human being, became the All-Enlightened One, and the purpose of life is the attainment of Enlightenment. This state of consciousness, Nirvana, the extinction of the limitations of selfhood, is attainable on earth. All men and all other forms of life contain the potentiality of Enlightenment, and the purpose therefore consists in becoming what you are: “Look within; thou art Buddha”.

9. From potential to actual Enlightenment there lies the Middle Way, the Eightfold Path from desire to peace”, a process of self-development between the “opposites”, avoiding all extremes. The Buddha trod this Way to the end, and the only faith required in Buddhism is the reasonable belief that where a Guide has trodden its is worth our while to tread. The Way must be trodden by the whole man, nor merely the best of him, and heart and mind must be developed equally. The Buddha was the All-Compassionate as well as the All-Enlightened One.

10. Buddhism lays great stress on the need of inward concentration and meditation, which leads in time to the development of the inner spiritual faculties. The subjective life is as important as the daily round, and periods of quietude for inner activity are essential for a balanced life. The Buddhist should at all times be “mindful and self-possessed”, refraining from mental and emotional attachment to “the passing show”. This increasingly watchful attitude to circumstances, which he knows to be his own creation, helps him to keep his reaction to it always under control.

11. The Buddha said: “Work out your own salvation with diligence”. Buddhism knows no authority for truth save the intuition of the individual, and that is authority for himself alone. Each man suffers the consequences of his own acts, and learns thereby, while helping his fellow man to the same deliverance; nor will prayer to the Buddha or to any God prevent an effect following its cause. Buddhist monks are teachers and examplars, and in no sense intermediaries between Reality and the individual. The utmost tolerance is practiced towards all other religions and philosophies, for no man has the right to interfere in his neighbor’s journey to the Goal.

12. Buddhism is neither pessimistic or “escapist”, nor does it deny the existence of God or soul, though it places its own meaning on these terms. It is, on the contrary, a system of thought, a religion, a spiritual science and a way of life, which is reasonable, practical and all embracing. For over two thousand years it has satisfied the spiritual needs of nearly one-third of mankind. It appeals to the West because it has no dogmas, satisfies the reason and the heart alike, insists on self-reliance coupled with tolerance for other points of view, embraces science, religion, philosophy, psychology, ethics and art, and points to man alone as the creator of his present life and sole designer of his destiny.

That's what some religions are all about, but shouldn't that be discussed in the other thread?
Religion and philosophy intertwine and often are one in the same especially if you consider Buddhism. Once I started studying Buddhism, I have considered it more philosophy than religion, but I bet if you ask most people, they would call it one of the world's great religions.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Messages
171
Location
Austin, Texas
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
560
A bit LTTP, what with Rome and all (back in one piece).

I'm a policy utilitarian. That means that the basic imperatives, which I accept on faith and without argument, go something like this:

(1) An ethical imperative should only be considered binding if, if it were universally applied, it produces (a) less misery and (b) more happiness than competing ethical imperatives.

(2) Argument and experience are valid tools for testing whether a proposed ethical imperative is consistent with principle (1).

The practical upshot is that I behave more or less like any reasonably law-abiding, reasonably well-meaning individual. The philosophical underpinnings are really only useful if I hit an ethical dilemma -- and even so, I'm by no means certain that my reasoning isn't just a fancy rationalization of whatever it was I would have done anyway.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
But Rome is hardly Imperium Romanum any more, and something as simple as less misery and more happiness is hardly an ethos. It's what is happiness and misery that is philosophy. Even then the noun happiness can be enjoyed on mass by people I would consider misguided. People can enjoy the most crudest of things.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
2,080
Location
UK
But Rome is hardly Imperium Romanum any more, and something as simple as less misery and more happiness is hardly an ethos. It's what is happiness and misery that is philosophy. Even then the noun happiness can be enjoyed on mass by people I would consider misguided. People can enjoy the most crudest of things.

Misery and happiness are hard to define exactly, but that doesn't mean they're useless. That just means that when we get down to the concrete level -- that is, considering a specific proposed ethical imperative -- we'll look at its immediate effects, and then discuss whether those immediate effects contribute to happiness or misery. Much of the time, there won't even be a huge amount of disagreement at this level -- for example, few people would argue that being forcefully deprived of a freedom or a material good in itself leads to greater happiness.

("Rome" just meant that I'm back from there; I mentioned it on another thread on this forum. This has nothing to do with Roman ethics; if anything, this is derived from Kant and Popper.)
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
I never said that they're useless, it's just that, Philosophy can't be defined so simply. Which I'm sure you know and proved with your post. You can base the core of your ethics on simple statements but in the end people and life are more complex. I'm sure the sadists know this.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
2,080
Location
UK
I never said that they're useless, it's just that, Philosophy can't be defined so simply. Which I'm sure you know and proved with your post. You can base the core of your ethics on simple statements but in the end people and life are more complex. I'm sure the sadists know this.

That's what I attempted to suggest by stating that the upshot is that I behave more or less like everybody else.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
Behaving isn't thinking like everybody else though - that's another side of wisdom.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
2,080
Location
UK
Eliaures: Have you read 'The Heart of Perfect Wisdom Sutra?'

HEART OF GREAT PERFECT WISDOM SUTRA

Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva, when deeply practicing prajna paramita,clearly saw that all five aggregates are empty and thus relieved all suffering. Shariputra, form does not differ from emptiness, emptiness does not differ from form.

Form itself is emptiness, emptiness itself form. Sensations, perceptions, formations, and consciousness are also like this. Shariputra, all dharmas are marked by emptiness; they neither arise nor cease, are neither defiled nor pure, neither increase nor decrease. Therefore, given emptiness, there are no forms, sensations, perceptions, formations, or consciousness; no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, or mind; no sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch, or objects of mind; no realm of sight, and so forth, down to no realm of mind consciousness. There is neither ignorance nor extinction of ignorance, and so forth, down to neither old age and death, nor extinction of old age and death; no suffering, no cause, no cessation, no path; no knowledge and no attainment. With nothing to attain, a bodhisattva relies on prajna paramita, and thus the mind is without hindrance. Without hindrance, there is no fear. Far beyond all inverted views, one realizes nirvana. All buddhas of past, present, and future rely on prajna paramita and thereby attain unsurpassed, complete, perfect enlightenment. Therefore, know the prajna paramita as the great miraculous mantra, the great bright mantra, the supreme mantra, the incomparable mantra, which removes all suffering and is true, not false. Therefore we proclaim the prajna paramita mantra, the mantra that says: "Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha." (Gone, Gone, Gone Beyond, the other shore reached, Enlightenment Hail!).
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
296
Behaving isn't thinking like everybody else though - that's another side of wisdom.

Quite. -- Anyway, I was just providing a definition of policy utilitarianism, not a full discussion of it.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
Eliaures: Have you read 'The Heart of Perfect Wisdom Sutra?'

I had not read that specific sutra. I have read similar though. I think every book on Buddhism I've read does go over that which was stated in "The Heart of Perfect Wisdom". I still enjoyed reading that sutra though. Thank you.
 
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Messages
171
Location
Austin, Texas
Back
Top Bottom