Moral- Ignorance or Bliss?
- Auteur de la discussion restin
- Date de début
psm
Alpiniste Kundalini
- Inscrit
- 14/5/08
- Messages
- 540
restin a dit:
Morals are very unnatural. They are rules that ask for obedience. It is created to build fear and a bad consciousness.
Ethical principals are more natural and can be obtained by thinking. they cause responsibility not fear. awareness not bad conscious.
What we call "the seven deadly sins" are a portrait of excessive behavior. None of them are bad in a moderate version. It is the excessive version that causes trouble. If you are aware of that, are compassionate, responsible and open minded, you don't need any other laws and rules. Not even morality.
i like to distinguish between morals and principals.
morals are codes invented by society over the generations, of what they deem is right and wrong. morals exist at the whims of those who believe in them and vary wildly depending on where you live. think of 1950's middle class morality==sex before marriage is evil, all those black people doing drugs and making satanic music.. homosexuals are hated by god etc etc. victorian morality=women should cover themselves, hell let's cover our table legs even, any sexual thought or sexual pleasure is evil.
principles i tend to think of as more fundamental, and hence from them stems a better sense of how to live your life. principles are a guide to living.
my morals are open to change, and have changed a lot in my lifetime.
my principles haven't really changed all that much.
here's an example:
in principle, it is wrong to hurt others. therefore i make the choice to not murder or rob. out of a sense of principle, not from some divine code of morals or fear of the afterlife. say when i was religious i believed that homosexuality was immoral, my moral code changed as i discovered that homosexuality does not in fact hurt others, in fact it is very beneficial to some people's well-being. and i discovered that the anti-gay "moral" crowd was the only group really hurting others and I wanted nothing to do with them. my morals changed, my set of principles did not change.
principles on the other hand are necessary for personal growth and insight. as is not only being critical of morals one has accepted as truth, but any sort of serious self-questioning and soul searching.
morals are codes invented by society over the generations, of what they deem is right and wrong. morals exist at the whims of those who believe in them and vary wildly depending on where you live. think of 1950's middle class morality==sex before marriage is evil, all those black people doing drugs and making satanic music.. homosexuals are hated by god etc etc. victorian morality=women should cover themselves, hell let's cover our table legs even, any sexual thought or sexual pleasure is evil.
principles i tend to think of as more fundamental, and hence from them stems a better sense of how to live your life. principles are a guide to living.
my morals are open to change, and have changed a lot in my lifetime.
my principles haven't really changed all that much.
here's an example:
in principle, it is wrong to hurt others. therefore i make the choice to not murder or rob. out of a sense of principle, not from some divine code of morals or fear of the afterlife. say when i was religious i believed that homosexuality was immoral, my moral code changed as i discovered that homosexuality does not in fact hurt others, in fact it is very beneficial to some people's well-being. and i discovered that the anti-gay "moral" crowd was the only group really hurting others and I wanted nothing to do with them. my morals changed, my set of principles did not change.
principles on the other hand are necessary for personal growth and insight. as is not only being critical of morals one has accepted as truth, but any sort of serious self-questioning and soul searching.
How do you see our moral principles?
Some go up, some go down.
Are they a cage surpressing our freedom?
The circular movement some-up-some-down is caused by the inevitable intensity of having made a decision at a bifurcation of a road. A path is chosen, a selection made. Not all roads are the same, some are green some are yellow. So, sometimes when I want to be green and yellow there is an impossibility.
But its not only the moral by itself, it is rooted feet underground and decentralized in several spheres, for example: motion, as I referred to.
Are they necessary for personal insight?
The light is in the heavens as well as in the sewers, everywhere. The nature of light [which is the avatar of the mirror itself, with its duality] belongs to the matrix of the telescopic vision of the cosmos: fractal existence: every particle is made of light hence every particle reflects the entire cosmic self. Insight, sight, light.
[...in several spheres, for example: light, as I referred to.]
Are they natural?
There is no human nature, we constantly produce ourselves anew.
peace
Some go up, some go down.
Are they a cage surpressing our freedom?
The circular movement some-up-some-down is caused by the inevitable intensity of having made a decision at a bifurcation of a road. A path is chosen, a selection made. Not all roads are the same, some are green some are yellow. So, sometimes when I want to be green and yellow there is an impossibility.
But its not only the moral by itself, it is rooted feet underground and decentralized in several spheres, for example: motion, as I referred to.
Are they necessary for personal insight?
The light is in the heavens as well as in the sewers, everywhere. The nature of light [which is the avatar of the mirror itself, with its duality] belongs to the matrix of the telescopic vision of the cosmos: fractal existence: every particle is made of light hence every particle reflects the entire cosmic self. Insight, sight, light.
[...in several spheres, for example: light, as I referred to.]
Are they natural?
There is no human nature, we constantly produce ourselves anew.
peace
Freedom is the price for our sanity.
I think that we are in a constant War is Peace situation (the second Orwell quote 8) ). Peace exists because war would cost too much/isn't profitable. E.g. the international community is in peace because the powers are in an equilibrium. As soon as there is the possibility of profit, war begins (2WW,Iraq). This situation is also aquirable on a personal level. I don't kill you because I will get to jail. I don't lie because if you find out, you won't help me. I think that the human nature is egoistic and sadistic. Give a person total freedom and it will use it (Stanford Prison Experiment).
So: we need moral principles as rules so we don't kill each other. So we can live with each other.
My 2cents.
I think that we are in a constant War is Peace situation (the second Orwell quote 8) ). Peace exists because war would cost too much/isn't profitable. E.g. the international community is in peace because the powers are in an equilibrium. As soon as there is the possibility of profit, war begins (2WW,Iraq). This situation is also aquirable on a personal level. I don't kill you because I will get to jail. I don't lie because if you find out, you won't help me. I think that the human nature is egoistic and sadistic. Give a person total freedom and it will use it (Stanford Prison Experiment).
So: we need moral principles as rules so we don't kill each other. So we can live with each other.
My 2cents.
"Freedom is the price for our sanity. "
or/and, sanity the price of freedom?
More even:
which is, specially in the context of psychoactive substances and particularly psychedelics, the blurred line that borders sanity from insanity?
yes, really, there is a novel connection between sanity and freedom. What can it become?
I think relativity has a lot to say here on the possible selections the collective must produce that will make us better or not.
One must create and recreate a particular moral, or principle, because one must always make a choice.
And I believe relativity is an ontological door towards non-patriarchal community.
'TTis unbecoming for a young man to utter maxims ...says Aristotle
'TTis unbecoming for a young man to become? ...a clown's that is drunk response
or/and, sanity the price of freedom?
More even:
which is, specially in the context of psychoactive substances and particularly psychedelics, the blurred line that borders sanity from insanity?
yes, really, there is a novel connection between sanity and freedom. What can it become?
I think relativity has a lot to say here on the possible selections the collective must produce that will make us better or not.
One must create and recreate a particular moral, or principle, because one must always make a choice.
And I believe relativity is an ontological door towards non-patriarchal community.
'TTis unbecoming for a young man to utter maxims ...says Aristotle
'TTis unbecoming for a young man to become? ...a clown's that is drunk response
Most morals that ever existed are from lack of knowledge and dumb beliefs. A lot of them are caused by religion. If our societies could just push beyond religion and seek for the truth, most of these morals would not exist. I do not think that they are natural, more less a product of the human mind. It is another shot from our government in an effort to control the way we behave. Control the citizens so they all think one way, and any individual out of the circle of 'normal' thinking is labeled different and not suitable for this society. This suppression limits the creativity that is in a lot of us. That is why a lot of psychedelic users end up taking up art.
My own personal everyday actions that I go by are simple. I am not rude to other people unless they are rude to me. I am nice to everyone unless they are not nice to me. I will never harm any other being, period. I feel that you know what is wrong inside, and you also know what is right inside. So follow that feeling that you have inside, and lets hope that inside you truly don't feel that killing is right.
PEACE & LOVE
My own personal everyday actions that I go by are simple. I am not rude to other people unless they are rude to me. I am nice to everyone unless they are not nice to me. I will never harm any other being, period. I feel that you know what is wrong inside, and you also know what is right inside. So follow that feeling that you have inside, and lets hope that inside you truly don't feel that killing is right.
PEACE & LOVE
Sorry for the misunderstanding...thats' because of my english
I wanted to talk about the basic principles of morals.
Don't kill.
Don't steal.
Don't hurt.
etc.
I would never ask if morals like "homosexuality is bad" or "sex before marriage" are good.
Those morals are a mirror to society. In a conservative society, morals are stronger than in liberal. But the principles are nevertheless the same.
I wanted to talk about the basic principles of morals.
Don't kill.
Don't steal.
Don't hurt.
etc.
I would never ask if morals like "homosexuality is bad" or "sex before marriage" are good.
Those morals are a mirror to society. In a conservative society, morals are stronger than in liberal. But the principles are nevertheless the same.
restin a dit:Sorry for the misunderstanding...thats' because of my english
I wanted to talk about the basic principles of morals.
Don't kill.
Don't steal.
Don't hurt.
etc.
I would never ask if morals like "homosexuality is bad" or "sex before marriage" are good.
Those morals are a mirror to society. In a conservative society, morals are stronger than in liberal. But the principles are nevertheless the same.
Ok, I understand. I think this is because of the way the word "moral" is frequently used in English. For example there is a saying called "moral relativism" which has basically become the label the conservative religious use to attack all those godless heathen homosexual pot-smoking commie adulterers who don't believe in their Church's strict set of "morals".
psm
Alpiniste Kundalini
- Inscrit
- 14/5/08
- Messages
- 540
restin a dit:
I wouldn't call that morals, but ethics (as st.bot.32 calls them principles).
They are rather natural ideas of common grounds, not constructed by any society really.
But ethics does not forbid any of the above. It does not say "Don't kill". Ethics asks for responsibility. to question not the "what" but rather the "why" and "how".
Is is wrong to kill? No. It is wrong to kill for the wrong reasons and in a wrong way.
[Example: You want to protect you child and the only, the last and only resort would be to kill the agitator, that threatens the life of your child - or even you own, but there you could still accept death as a responsibility. Then the "why" might be justified. Killing him without unnecessary pain, sadism or pleasure would be the "how".]
This questionary is essential for ethics. It leads to understanding causality. And the knowledge of causality will tell you about possible consequences. And knowing of consequences is important to make a decision.
As you can see, every decision is a single process of thought. Morality does not require thought. It generalizes, it takes away the need to calculate, understand and justify consequences and thus takes away any responsibility.
And as soon as you are not responsible for your actions, your life does not belong to you, you are only a puppet...
