morality within evolution

[lunamoth]

You can read the two referenced chapters from Karamazov here: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/d/d72b/chapter35.htmland here: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/d/d72b/chapter36.html

Enjoy.

Thank you for the links. Outstanding book! I read this just last year (curiously, just before I made a major shift in my religion). I look forward to using the links to refresh on these chapters.

 

[alexa]

Welcome back lunamoth,

Don't worry, you'll have the time to catch up with.

Abogado has managed to mark a checkmate with Nietzsche, Jung, Campbell and Shakespeare.

I'm sure, Juan will be back soon to say : yes, but (...) even for them.

So, for the moment, I'm torturing my fingers not to answer to quickly.

See you soon,

Alexa

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Abogado!

But could it also be that they simply do not feel bound by a "moral" obligation? Certainly you can find limitless examples of men of power who acted in compelete disregard of the principles you would associate with "evidence of a universal morality." And many of these would be men of remarkable education and ability. To judge them abnormal or immoral is to argue in a circle. (BTW, this thread may be starting to converge with Brian's new thread about whether Ethics are for the "lower classes." Interesting.)

I would have to look at specific examples, and even then there may not be enough information available to really check it out, but I would be inclined to think that even these individuals would exercise a form of morality, at least within their circle. It might be a tighter circle than most, say immediate family, children, or a spouse/lover, whereas the "average" person feels obligated for a larger group.

I recently watched (again) the movie Shindler's List. I had missed the beginning before. I didn't realize he was, by some people's standards, a person of "questionable" morality, yet he managed to save the lives of several hundred people, a very moral thing to do.

You have to conclude that this conduct is "abnormal" because that coincides with the moral template by which you judge the universe.

I can grant you this. Of course, I haven't seen any other specific model to gauge with.

But to them, it may seem perfectly rational to not acknowledge any moral obligation - only expediency and purpose.

Is this not the essence of Mill's utilitarianism?

But if there is no universal morality - there is nothing "wrong" with being a "sociopath." Hence, the challenge Ivan Karamazov faces in "Rebellion" often paraphrased as "without God, everything is permissible."

This is often used as argument to suggest that Atheists cannot ultimately be moral, or perhaps better said, cannot be moral without some other overriding influence, such as the weight and opinion of society.

I would think, in the terms of this discussion, that "sociopath" is a relative term. A sociopath within the group is detrimental to the survival of that group (which would be immoral). A sociopath directed towards "others" outside of the group may be a patriot or hero (which would be moral, and potentially very moral, at least to the group "he" represents).

That it's "utility." What about its moral "propriety?"

Ah, whether or not behavioral psychology is moral? Of course, memes are very similar to behavioral psychology, in that both are fed by emotions. Negative emotions seem to be the best to suit the purpose. Of course, this observation supports what you are saying, if one considers that memes are social constructs. Behavioral psychology simply is, the animal nature within humans exploited for business purposes.

Suggesting a need to change would be contrary to the whole idea of moving beyond "morality" in the first place, wouldn't it?

I'm not certain I am asking for a change, per se. I was looking to figure out what you had been alluding to. Since I am at a point right now of trying to see if a universal morality exists, moving beyond it would be a little premature I think.

FWIW, the paper I turned in for my ethics class presented morality with a question mark. Thank you. I don't know how it will be received, but I think I am beginniing to look at the puzzle from a different vantage.

You'd be right back to precepts of "good" and "evil" supported by reasons. Only it would be different precepts and different reasons -- but the same problem -- it places your ends at the center of the Universe.

OK, I am not sure I fully understand. For the sake of discussion, perhaps the terms "good" and "bad" should be replaced, as I saw in one of the quotes I cited, with the terms "ought" and "ought not." We ought to treat the members of our group with a distinction for the purpose of survival. For discussion, if universal morality exists, then it is not "my" ends at the center of the universe, but the universal morality, presuming "my" ends are in accord with that universal morality. I don't make that presumption, as a matter of course, which is the reason for this thread in the first place.

Paraphrasing however, he says that it is a jaded view of life (a "suspicion against life" as it is often translated) driven by reason and the false sense of knowledge about "good" and "evil" or that the ideal world of reason is the "true" world, that compels us to despise ourselves, our life, our Universe and to demand meaning - not where there is no "meaning" (nihilism) but where no "meaning" is actually necessary.

I am not fully sure I follow, but I'll try. Am I to presume here that logic supplants morality? I can see logic supplanting formal moral constructs, religion, but I do not see where logic would supplant moral "ought and ought not." I would further add that not all reasoning is logical. I would venture to say that some people, perhaps a majority most of the time, reason with emotion, instinct or reaction. I would think that it is within these types of reasoning that people would seek meaning where none exists. Which returns us to behavioral psych and memes.

I don't think I've argued that humans are inclined away from morality. I think I am saying that they are amoral but create morality to satisfy a psychology created by fear and utility.

OK, my mistake. Again, I see formal moral constructs as fulfilling these, and even being used to manipulate the masses by fear and utility. But religion is not morality. Religion pretends to some form of morality, but it is not the morality itself. Religion teaches the "oughts and ought nots," but the individual is the one who "feels" and interprets the meanings.

The problem is, I read those myths of the earliest Shamans in the great wisdom traditions and I see a call to step beyond the ego, beyond judgment and morality, to experience a oneness beyond the Self and its judgments - to override "reason" and tap back into the joy of life. I don't see them as a reinforcement of the meaning and value of moral judgment. That was the doorway to love and spirit for me. And once I started through that doorway, I saw that the law was the door - not the doorway. I hate to be so cryptic, but language is a poor vehicle for conveying experience.

I do like this description, law as the door, not the doorway. I would be very interested in hearing of your experience.

I will add one little caveat though, I do not see law as morality. Law is formalized morality, or was at one time. Yes, law can be an obstacle. If universal morality exists, it is not law. It transcends law, and is universal to all (whether or not all apply it). I guess the nearest I can describe in this sense would be "a conscience." The little Jiminy Cricket that sits on your shoulder. Or the little angel that whispers in your ear (while the little devil does the same on the other side). Figurative, but the best I can do right now.

Is that the criteria? Also, I'm not sure that it has be be "pessimistic" or "optimistic." If you find "truth" and joy what difference does the label make?

I can accept this on a subjective, relative level, from the outside in. "Pessimistic, optimistic, truth and joy" are individual interpretations. I suppose, hypothetically, a person could seem outwardly pessimistic and be internally optimistic, or at least joy in being pessimistic, but I would think such a person to be against the physiological norm. People tend to radiate outwardly their internal psyche. An optimistic person will radiate joy and happiness, whereas a pessimistic person tends not to.

While I don't disagree, I am at the point of seriously questioning it. I am a lion becoming a child (my dragon is dead). But I am not yet a child.

This is intriguing to me, I do not understand.

There is consensus. But is that really circumstantial evidence of existence?

I can grant you this. My point was that an overwhelming number of people ascribe to the concept, which made me wonder if there was something I missed.

That's quite similar to the very problem that led me through the doorway! Love and spirit are intertwined, but the law subverts love and disconnects spirit by elevating ego. And yes, once you use language, it is the ordinary human way of being.

Absolutely! LAW subverts love, but law is not morality. Paul also, speaking of love, talked of "faith, hope and charity, these three," and "the greatest of these is charity." Charity, in this sense, is love. At the same time it is "ethical action", or in a word, morality.



I had not heard the saying from the Tao te Ching before, thanks. I am inclined to agree.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Lunamoth!

Happy to see you back! I trust your vacation was enjoyable.

Good to hear that you survived Charlie intact. Weather certainly can make life interesting, in that Chinese curse sort of way.

Yes, well, we were very fortunate. I did take a little time to "wash my bowl," I passed the collection plate around for the Red Cross. It was the only thing I could think of to do given my circumstances. I hope I did the correct thing, in my heart I know I meant well. A portion was to see if there might be a lesson to apply here, but I have come away empty on that.

If one means universal as unchanging since the dawn of mankind, the only thing I can think of is "love thy neighbor." I think that this basis of morality was born with humanity and perhaps is more important and more distinguishing than any human trait ever found in the fossil record.

I agree, the historical distinction being in just who comprised a "neighbor."

This law certainly was not acted upon as we strive to in this day.

Is it adequate and appropriate to call such "law?"

Perhaps at first the only ones who could qualify as "neighbor" would be an extended family or clan. Now we can see the whole world as our neighbor and not only as a potential enemy. But of course this is an ideal.

I agree, it is an ideal to strive for. But is it innate, or is it learned (invented) behavior?

Maybe we don't do much better than our earliest ancestors. I think the important new meme is "love thy enemy." I think this is the one meant to take us to our next higher level of "evolution." But it took 6 millions years to work on just the first one.

Again, it might be something worth striving for, ideally, from our perspective towards "peace and harmony among all humanity," but is it something from outside of us that guides us, or is it something from within. Ah, words fail here. Is it "natural" to love our enemies, or is this simply a moral construct for modern society?

Our physical evolution, including the evolution of the brain, is based upon the selfish gene and our behavioral , including moral, evolution is based upon the selfish meme, the question still is, what is the ultimate source of the gene and the meme?

BINGO! In which direction are we being led. Which way is up? Which way does the flow go? Are we, as individuals, going with the current, or struggling against it?

What roles do morality, love and spirit have in our journeys?

I'll get to the others later. G'nite!

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Thank you for the links. Outstanding book! I read this just last year (curiously, just before I made a major shift in my religion). I look forward to using the links to refresh on these chapters.

I read it in 1991 and it marked a huge shift in my worldview as well (the beginning of one, anyway). It was a high water mark in my education for sure.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Kindest Regards, Abogado!

And to you as well. This is going to be a long post I fear. It seems like we've touched on just about every major question in this exchange.

I would have to look at specific examples, and even then there may not be enough information available to really check it out, but I would be inclined to think that even these individuals would exercise a form of morality, at least within their circle. It might be a tighter circle than most, say immediate family, children, or a spouse/lover, whereas the "average" person feels obligated for a larger group.

But doesn't it just become relativism rather than a "universal" morality? Is it a morality at all? Biology could explain the desire to further the interests of immediate family, children and spouse without reference to any morality.

I recently watched (again) the movie Shindler's List. I had missed the beginning before. I didn't realize he was, by some people's standards, a person of "questionable" morality, yet he managed to save the lives of several hundred people, a very moral thing to do.

And why did he do it? Because he felt guilty for what he had done? Perhaps. But the way I perceived the story was that he had a moment of "truth" - en epiphany - in which he connected himself with others. I suspected a few posts back that you and I would discover that we were talking about the same thing but using two different words. I am pretty sure that's the case now. I'll explain what I mean below.

Is this not the essence of Mill's utilitarianism?

It certainly is. It's also the essence of Machiavelli. But again, is this "morality." It certainly doesn't seem to have the feel of a "universal" morality like the golden rule or Kant's categorical imperative.

This is often used as argument to suggest that Atheists cannot ultimately be moral, or perhaps better said, cannot be moral without some other overriding influence, such as the weight and opinion of society.

Only if you discount the power of aesthetics.

I would think, in the terms of this discussion, that "sociopath" is a relative term. A sociopath within the group is detrimental to the survival of that group (which would be immoral). A sociopath directed towards "others" outside of the group may be a patriot or hero (which would be moral, and potentially very moral, at least to the group "he" represents).

True. And incredibly scary.

I'm not certain I am asking for a change, per se. I was looking to figure out what you had been alluding to. Since I am at a point right now of trying to see if a universal morality exists, moving beyond it would be a little premature I think.

I wasn't suggesting that you were asking for a change, but responding to a statement you made implying that I was advocating some change. Which I am not.

FWIW, the paper I turned in for my ethics class presented morality with a question mark. Thank you. I don't know how it will be received, but I think I am beginniing to look at the puzzle from a different vantage.

As am I. Thank you.

OK, I am not sure I fully understand. For the sake of discussion, perhaps the terms "good" and "bad" should be replaced, as I saw in one of the quotes I cited, with the terms "ought" and "ought not." We ought to treat the members of our group with a distinction for the purpose of survival. For discussion, if universal morality exists, then it is not "my" ends at the center of the universe, but the universal morality, presuming "my" ends are in accord with that universal morality. I don't make that presumption, as a matter of course, which is the reason for this thread in the first place.

Is survival the "good"?

I am not fully sure I follow, but I'll try. Am I to presume here that logic supplants morality?

No. Just the opposite. Logic drives morality. But it depends on langauge, which is ultimately empty of truth. So too is a logic of morality.

I'll respond to the rest later.

Have an excellent evening.

 

[lunamoth]

I hope you don't mind me responding to your post to Juantoo. Some interesting points here.

I should have put a line break in there. Those were two different questions. First, I propose - questioningly - whether the motive for subjugating oneself to a moral code is really simply motivated by fear. That could be a fear of reprisal or consequences in the here and now and it could be a fear created by the perception of truth in a judgment in the afterlife (or subsequent lives, etc.). Do you perceive that those with less to fear are more likely to "violate" what you perceive as "uiversal morals?"

Very interesting idea--really never occured to me except as it applies to criminal sociopaths. But, I don't really know if they have no fear or somehow their fear-response wiring is crossed so that they feel thrill or satisfaction where others might feel fear. But, it did make me think of lepers. If I am correctly informed, lepers can't feel pain and so end up with all kinds of damage on their bodies that non-lepers are able to avoid or nurse. Pain seems bad, but really it is very important defense mechanism. Fear seems bad, but we know it is important for mounting the fight or flight adreneline response. Maybe it also has important cultural benefits. The lack of fear of social, non-immediate consequences maybe needs a different name than the fear of seeing a tiger nearby.

I'd like to explore this further but maybe it belongs in Brian's new thread (that I haven't visited yet) about ethics and class.

The second question is "does everyone cling to the trappings of a universal morality?" It seems that many do not. It also seems that one would be hard pressed to find words to express or describe a universal morality.

I don't think 100% of the people must cling to something to make it universal. Even though a blind person can't see it, the color red is still found in all rainbows.

It does as a concept, certainly. The question is - does it exist aside from the concept? If so, what is the mode of its existence? What is the description of its attributes? How do we know of its existence or its attributes? And what is its source? That's why I asked about "Karamazov." In Book V, Chapters 4 and 5, Dostoyevsky's Ivan Karamozov utters some of the most brilliant prose I've ever read on the subject of morality.

Thank you for this very challenging discussion. I am enjoying it greatly.

About the concept of a universal law. If you mean by concept that it is an ideal, then that also implies that there are many shades of grey between achieving this ideal and utterly failing at it. However, the ideal exists always and the real exists sporadically, sometimes only for seconds at a time.

I (quite unoriginally ) said above that "love thy neighbor" strikes me as a universal moral law. A civilization or culture is defined by having law--things that you do and things that you don't do that separate you from animals and others that don't do as you do (and hey! see now I am making your point about how law separates us from each other). But is there any civilization that does not acknowledge this law of love? Is there any culture that bases its morality on treating each other indifferently, or abusively? I guess this is a rhetorical question because I believe the answer is no.

We have a universal law, that of love, that unites us. You can't have even a family, much less a village or state, without this law.

 

[lunamoth]

I agree a Christian theism offers an ontological ground for morality. Still, Christianity is only one among other religions of the world

In the Christian religion the 10 commandements are laws for their beilivers. If we accept the equation : moral = law, even an atheist who believes in law (judiciary system) can be a moral person

Hi Alexa, and thank you for the welcome back. My vacation was relaxing and too short.

Excellent points above. I've referred a couple of times now to the "love thy neighbor" law due to my Christian/Baha'i bias, but I think that this law of love is universal to all religions. Now, if you look at the ten commandments, half of them are really just a non-comprehensive breakdown of this law of love thy neighbor as yourself: you wouldn't murder yourself, you wouldn't steal from yourself. The other half are about loving God. How do we love God? We obey His law. What is His law? Love your neighbor, and yourself (give your slaves/employees and yourself a day off out of every seven, act with nobility and sanctity, "Be Holy because I Am Holy").

If we keep going like this we are not going to be able to avoid rehashing the atheist/agnostic/theist discussion, I am afraid!

 

[alexa]

But is there any civilization that does not acknowledge this law of love? Is there any culture that bases its morality on treating each other indifferently, or abusively? I guess this is a rhetorical question because I believe the answer is no.

We have a universal law, that of love, that unites us. You can't have even a family, much less a village or state, without this law.

I'm afraid I have to disagree on this, lunamoth. I still cannot believe and accept how women are considered as useless or as properties for a man due to a wrong interpretation and the moralilty in some religions. If a father burnes his own daughter only because she doesn't want to marry an old man, or a woman is delapidated just because she took the liberty to look to another guy, than yes I consider this as abusive.

We have another universal law, even I don't like it, which is hate, that devides us.

As Juan said in another post, it depends what law we are talking about.

Nowadays, there are too many religions and cults and sects and they keep speading out to aloud us to find the unity in our morality. The first step fo an universal moral is, in my humble opinion, to know about the existance of the others, different from your religion or your belifs. Second : do the effort to learn about the others and not to tell yourself, I'm right and the other is wrong, so why should I care. Third : learn to live and let the others live, too. For the following steps, only the future can tell us which direction is the best.

 

[lunamoth]

Juan:

Here's an interesting excerpt from one of Nietzsche's letters from "Will to Power" that touches upon the idea of universal morality projected into nature.

I have not read or studied Nietzsche, or any other philosophy for that matter, to any significant extent, so forgive the naivety in my thoughts about this passage.

Toward the end it concludes that through solely the powers of reason we end up with nihilism, but this overlooks a couple of things. First, the observable evidence that our cultures, traditions and beliefs serve a purpose, they fulfill individual need and make civilizations run smoother. So, we have some need other than what is logical/physical/measurable/describable. Second, it limits the universe to what our mind can understand. What is incorrect, or ignorant, about using a myth to describe the indescribable, to understand the (real but) unknowable? And, let me add that by myth I do not necessarily mean something that did not historically happen. I guess I don't agree that we need to be trapped by reason. Religion at its best is the way to survive the rough waters that lie beyond reason.

 

[lunamoth]

Nietzsche's specific resposne ...Paraphrasing however, he says that it is a jaded view of life (a "suspicion against life" as it is often translated) driven by reason and the false sense of knowledge about "good" and "evil" or that the ideal world of reason is the "true" world, that compels us to despise ourselves, our life, our Universe and to demand meaning - not where there is no "meaning" (nihilism) but where no "meaning" is actually necessary.

Very helpful. thank you for the follow-up. Seems kind of like where I was wandering to.

That's quite similar to the very problem that led me through the doorway! Love and spirit are intertwined, but the law subverts love and disconnects spirit by elevating ego. And yes, once you use language, it is the ordinary human way of being.

Interesting metaphor. I actually think of open doorways too. I'm calling love a law, actually the only law, and think of morality as flowing out of love, as your passage below says:

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. - 1 Corinthians 13:2

 

[alexa]

My vacation was relaxing and too short.
Now, if you look at the ten commandments, half of them are really just a non-comprehensive breakdown of this law of love thy neighbor as yourself: you wouldn't murder yourself, you wouldn't steal from yourself. The other half are about loving God. How do we love God? We obey His law. What is His law? Love your neighbor, and yourself (give your slaves/employees and yourself a day off out of every seven, act with nobility and sanctity, "Be Holy because I Am Holy").

Hi lunamoth,

I think the most important law is the first one : "I am the Lord, your God. You shall not have strange gods before me." You have to love God primarly and the love for your neigbour comes after.

In fact, I believe Moise gave a very good moral code to his followers.

I'm glad you've enjoyed your vacation. Speaking about slaves/employees, I didn't think I'll be able to take mine, but I'm so exhausted that my supervisor ordered me to take at least one week off. So, beginning today I'm officially on vacation. I'm not happy at all, as at my return he'll take two weeks and I'll be his back-up.

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Alexa, Thank you for your heartfelt reply.

At this point in my life I do not share your suspicions about religions. I don't see any inherent evil in the diversity of religions. I conclude that this diversity is needed to meet the diverse needs of six billion unique people. Not to say that evil is not done in the name of religion, or that some societies calling themselves religions base their tenets on hate and prejudice.

I think you have already given the responses I would write to you. The abuse and denigration of women/other races/homosexuals are misinterpretations, not the law.

We can't achieve a universal moral--there either is one or there isn't. I choose to believe that there is one.

We can't find unity in our morality--that's looking for love in all the wrong places.

The first step fo an universal moral is, in my humble opinion, to know about the existance of the others, different from your religion or your belifs. Second : do the effort to learn about the others and not to tell yourself, I'm right and the other is wrong, so why should I care. Third : learn to live and let the others live, too. For the following steps, only the future can tell us which direction is the best.

Change those first few words to "The first step to achieving love (or oneness) is," and you've summarized my exact feelings as well. I have a Christian/Baha'i slant because that is what i know the best..not because I think it is the only or best way. And, why am I posting on this website? Because I learn so much of value about all those other religions. I weave them into my own worldview, but still this worldview is just for me.

Hate is not a universal law. It may be a universal response, but it is one that we must strive to overcome. Hate comes out of fear. There are genuine reasons to have fear, and they are all traced back to a lack of love in one way or another. I'm not saying it's easy to love. I'm not saying there isn't hate and racism and mysogyny. I'm saying our nobility and joy lies in overcoming these to whatever little bit we can.

 

[lunamoth]

Hi lunamoth,

I think the most important law is the first one : "I am the Lord, your God. You shall not have strange gods before me." You have to love God primarly and the love for your neigbour comes after.

I didn't pause to rank them, but this is a good primacy.

You type faster than I can read and respond! You must type for a living!

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Juantoo3,

Thanks for the welcome. Good to be here. Hey, cool about your collection. A good deed is a good deed. A billion points of light, right? (Just because a quote was written for political reasons doesn't mean it isn't a good one ).

Is it adequate and appropriate to call such "law?"

Yes, I think it is the best term. Maybe it should be capitatlized as Law, or LAW. But, reading all these threads and probably missing quite a bit, I see that I am not using this the same way others are. I don't think of morality as a set of written laws that vary from culture to culture, religion to religion. I think of morality as the reason we have those laws, or mores. It is immoral to murder and steal, but why? So "love thy neighbor" is a super-law that is above all the others. The others can change because people in different times and places are different. I admit that I am borrowing heavily from Baha'i writings at this point. Even really loving someone is very hard to do--it is not lust and it is not the desire to possess. A reflection of it is attainable in loving-kindness. And, I think, that when you practice something enough you get better at it. And you want to get better at it not so you can get into heaven or even feel satisfaction in this life. You practice it so you can start to approach true love. Here is where I think eastern religions have it all over modern day Christianity. I see mediatation and mysticism as sort of short-cuts, excellent paths we can take in this life. If you are able to detach from a lot of things many of us choose to have in our lives. So it might be a kind of short-cut, but it's like a shortcut over Rainier instead of going around.
Keep in mind that I am very unknowledgable in these things--perhaps that is why they seem unattainable for me.

I agree, it is an ideal to strive for. But is it innate, or is it learned (invented) behavior?

I think of it as a seed that we need to water and nurture, a small spark that needs oxygen to turn into a flame.

Again, it might be something worth striving for, ideally, from our perspective towards "peace and harmony among all humanity," but is it something from outside of us that guides us, or is it something from within. Ah, words fail here. Is it "natural" to love our enemies, or is this simply a moral construct for modern society?

Is there a difference between without and within? What is natural? Or as you say, which way is up? We are starting to go round and round (not that it isn't interesting!).

What roles do morality, love and spirit have in our journeys?

Is this a change in topic, or is it really the question, "Do you think that there would be morality without a God/Gods/Ground of Being/Something Else?"

I say no. You can choose to say yes, God is not necessary, or you can choose to say no. Or you can not choose. I think choosing not to choose is a sad loss (others will say that choosing to choose is a waste of time!). You can choose atheism, but you have no better grounds for that belief than someone who thinks there is God. Or you can choose to believe in God. It's a whole other discussion .

But here we are to mine the quarries for answers to the Is there a God question by examining the limits of our knowledge about evolution, no?

It's late, I'm rambling. Good night.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

OK, my mistake. Again, I see formal moral constructs as fulfilling these, and even being used to manipulate the masses by fear and utility. But religion is not morality. Religion pretends to some form of morality, but it is not the morality itself. Religion teaches the "oughts and ought nots," but the individual is the one who "feels" and interprets the meanings.

But the question remains: "what are the oughts and ought nots"? Where do they come from and what is their basis? I see both you and lunamoth holding out that morality allows for a smoother functioning society. That may be. But is that an ideal morality or is it utilitarian? Is that driven by fear or is it driven by love?

I do like this description, law as the door, not the doorway. I would be very interested in hearing of your experience.

I've recounted some of this elsewhere. That would be very lengthy and I'm not sure I could get it right putting it down in words.

I will add one little caveat though, I do not see law as morality. Law is formalized morality, or was at one time. Yes, law can be an obstacle. If universal morality exists, it is not law. It transcends law, and is universal to all (whether or not all apply it). I guess the nearest I can describe in this sense would be "a conscience." The little Jiminy Cricket that sits on your shoulder. Or the little angel that whispers in your ear (while the little devil does the same on the other side). Figurative, but the best I can do right now.

This is where I really suspect we aren't in much disagreement but that there's a difference in terminology. For me the word "morality" is already loaded with meaning. Thus, so too is "universal morality." The word conjures up a "law" - a list of dos and dont's, oughts and ought nots, thou shalts and thou shalt nots - a concept I long ago rejected as a basis for a meaningful spiritual truth for me. What I've since discovered is an aesthetic experience of the Oneness we all share with each other. While morality suggests an obligation to do or not do certain acts, I find by freeing myself of the trappings of logic and "moral" reasoning, I can experience my common exisistence with others and the universe - not just some shared attributes and ideas - but that I am other people and other people are me. This experience, for me, is love. We can experience this love on a smaller scale with our family and friends - moments of transendence in a relationship where you not only love a person for what there relationship is to you but for the burning feeling of a complete identity and total empathy. It can be experienced in glimpses for every one and every thing as well.

It's an aesthetic experience, not a moral logic. Once you experience it, morality - a list of oughts and ought nots - feels meaningless. Instead, once you know this experience of love, it really becomes a matter of simply not wanting to do anything but love others and experience this common connection - not out of obligation but out of desire. All identity but this is false identity to me - including Self.

From a meditative standpoint, I find that the less I judge the actions of myself and others, the more I am open to experience this aesthetic of love. That has a snowball effect because the more I experience love for others, the less the "morality" matters to me.

This is intriguing to me, I do not understand.

It's a reference to "Three Metamorphoses of the Spirit" from Nietzsche's "Thus Spake Zarathustra", which I've posted elsewhere on this discussion forum. His parable best describes my own personal spiritual journey over the last twenty years. That journey is ongoing.

I can grant you this. My point was that an overwhelming number of people ascribe to the concept, which made me wonder if there was something I missed.

If they ascribe to it out of fear or for utility that still does not help us get to a morality beyond human interpretations.

Absolutely! LAW subverts love, but law is not morality. Paul also, speaking of love, talked of "faith, hope and charity, these three," and "the greatest of these is charity." Charity, in this sense, is love. At the same time it is "ethical action", or in a word, morality.

I think we are very close to expressing the same ideas.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Here's Nietzsche's parable of the Three Metamorphoses that I referred to above:


OF THREE metamorphoses of the spirit do I tell you: how the spirit becomes a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a child.

Many heavy things are there for the spirit, the strong reverent spirit that would bear much: for the heavy and the heaviest longs its strength.

What is heavy? so asks the spirit that would bear much, and then kneels down like the camel, and wants to be well laden.

What is the heaviest thing, you heroes? asks the spirit that would bear much, that I may take it upon me and exult in my strength.

Is it not this: To humiliate oneself in order to mortify one's pride? To exhibit one's folly in order to mock at one's wisdom?

Or is it this: To desert our cause when it triumphs? To climb high mountains to tempt the tempter?

Or is it this: To feed on the acorns and grass of knowledge, and for the sake of truth to suffer hunger in one's soul?

Or is it this: To be sick and send away the comforters, and to make friends of the deaf, who never hear your requests?

Or is it this: To go into foul water when it is the water of truth, and not avoid cold frogs and hot toads?

Or is it this: To love those who despise us, and to give one's hand to the phantom who tries to frighten us?

All these heaviest things the spirit that would bear much takes upon itself: like the camel, that, when laden, hastens into the desert, so speeds the spirit into its desert.

But in the loneliest desert happens the second metamorphosis: here the spirit becomes a lion; he will seize his freedom and be master in his own wilderness.

Here he seeks his last master: he wants to fight him and his last God; for victory he will struggle with the great dragon.

Who is the great dragon which the spirit no longer wants to call Lord and God? "Thou-shalt," is the great dragon called. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will."

"Thou-shalt," lies in his path, sparkling with gold- a scale-covered beast; and on each scale glitters a golden "Thou-shalt!"

The values of a thousand years glitter on those scales, and thus speaks the mightiest of all dragons: "All values of all things- glitter on me.

All value has long been created, and I am all created value. Verily, there shall be no more 'I will' ." Thus speaks the dragon.

My brothers, why does the spirit need the lion? Why is the beast of burden, which renounces and is reverent, not enough?

To create new values- that, even the lion cannot accomplish: but to create for oneself freedom for new creating- that freedom the might of the lion can seize.

To create freedom for oneself, and give a sacred No even to duty: for that, my brothers, the lion is needed.

To assume the right to new values- that is the most terrifying assumption for a load-bearing and reverent spirit. To such a spirit it is preying, and the work of a beast of prey.

He once loved "Thou-shalt" as the most sacred: now is he forced to find illusion and arbitrariness even in the most sacred things, that freedom from his love may be his prey: the lion is needed for such prey.

But tell me, my brothers, what the child can do, which even the lion could not do? Why must the preying lion still become a child?

The child is innocence and forgetting, a new beginning, a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a sacred Yes.

For the game of creation, my brothers, a sacred Yes is needed: the spirit now wills his own will; the world's outcast now conquers his own world.

Of three metamorphoses of the spirit I have told you: how the spirit became a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a child.-

Thus spoke Zarathustra.

 

[alexa]

You type faster than I can read and respond! You must type for a living!

I have to type a lot, but no, this is not my force and occupation.

I'm not sure if I'll be able to post this message. It seems, my default e-mail program is out of order again.

So I have to wait for Brian's reply to see if I can re-write my replies.

Alexa

 

[alexa]

At this point in my life I do not share your suspicions about religions.

Hi lunamoth,

I do not have suspicions about any religion. Instead, I do have about their interpretation.

I don't see any inherent evil in the diversity of religioI conclude that this diversity is needed to meet the diverse needs of six billion unique people.

Neither do I. I'm a Cannadiane, remember? Diversity is normal for me.

Not to say that evil is not done in the name of religion, or that some societies calling themselves religions base their tenets on hate and prejudice.

Are you sure you really want to say "that evil is not done in the name of religion" ? I hope not.

Hate is not a universal law. It may be a universal response.

I accept your notification for hate as an universal response.

Still, love is not the only feeling which animates the human being.

Alexa

 

[alexa]

I recently watched (again) the movie Shindler's List. I had missed the beginning before. I didn't realize he was, by some people's standards, a person of "questionable" morality, yet he managed to save the lives of several hundred people, a very moral thing to do.

Hello Juan,

You brought to our attention another aspect about the evolution of the morality of a human being, this time. I think you'll agree to the fact the human being is rather complex. The person I was yesterday won't be the same tomorrow. We change every day, till the end of our days.

Consciousness is much more than the thorn, it is the dagger in the flesh - Emile Cioran

Alexa