Namaste juan,
thank you for the post.
i'm afraid if we apologize for our delays our conversations will mostly be those!
i extend to you the time required to address my posts when you have a moment, my friend, and hope you allow me the same
Thank you Vajra!
Our conversations have been scarce of late. My apologies for me being such a difficult student, and my gratitude for you being such a patient teacher.
hmm.. interesting question. i would suppose that i would have to disagree with the notion that humans are flawed in some manner. as near as i can tell human beings are absolutely perfect at being human.
I am inclined to agree, contingent upon how one views the little glitches in our architecture that lead to disease and deformity. Considering that such glitches are the same that allow an organism to adapt and modify over time, and such seem to have served life on this planet well for eons, I can see how the architecture of the human physical anatomy can be viewed...even metaphysically...as perfect.
The flaws of being human, in my view, have to do with the practice of humanity, of behaving in a humane manner. The architecture may well be perfect, how the architecture is used all too often seems not to be perfect.
that said i would always advocate that every generation question the concepts of morality, justice and equanamity that are inculcated into them. it seems to be the case that successive generations and indeed civilizations have examined such things and have kept many such things from their predecessors and rejected such things which no longer fit their world view.
I too advocate the questioning of concepts that are inculcated. Even in so doing, there do seem to be regular patterns. What changes are the details.
Does a monkey have ten commandments, or an eightfold path? I am inclined to think not, monkeys have no written language. Yet, while watching monkeys from time to time, I have noticed a certain social interplay that seems quite appropriately called "morality." Is monkey morality the same as human morality? I am inclined to think not, certainly not in the strictest sense. But it does seem to be apparent that certain behaviors within the group are not tolerated, and certain behaviors towards those outside the group are expected. Maybe expected isn't quite the correct word, but that is close to what I am trying to say.
Did our morality develop as our bodies did? Hard to say. As you point out though, as the various human social groups developed and morphed over time, they borrowed and even stole ideas, committed them to writing, legalized and codified and developed formal religion to teach and formal government to enforce...but the essence still remains, and not only in monkeys but in all social mammals, birds and other animals. Is morality purely an evolutionary construct? I never did find out, but I am inclined to think not, in the purest sense. I have no way to support that inclination, just a gut feeling that it is a part of and portion of the mechanism of life.
i'm not sure of Hume's awareness of our modern synthesis though i'd have to say that he probably was unaware of such things. in any case, human beings being social animals would seem to be consistent with his idea.
i'm pretty sure that you are not equating the moral sense of a human being with the moral sense of pack and herd animals even if we share an evolutionary history. i must be unaware of the evidence of reality which you find compelling enough to dismiss his argument. he presents intersubjective evidence to support his argument which you may find quite interesting even if you ultimately disagree with his assessment.
Perhaps. Regrettably there are only so many hours in a day, and life must be prioritized. And I must consider the many times that people misconstrue an author's intent and meaning, so it is completely possible I misunderstood, especially not having read his work myself.
as a point of order, so to speak, i would offer that the Buddhadharma posits a moral source outside of human beings so my own argument with Hume may not be substantially different than yours.
metta,
~v
It is always a blessing to me when we can find points of agreement.
Shalom
PS, I am intrigued, "Buddhadharma posits a moral source outside of human beings,"
If Buddhism has no "G-D," then what might this source of morality be? Perhaps better suited for another thread, but here is fine with me if you should be willing to answer.
No hurry.
