morality within evolution

[lunamoth]

Dear Lady Selune,

Great post! And welcome to CR and this thread. Hope you are able to stay around for more of this and other conversations.

Compassion--how could I have left that word out of my own post! Yes, exactly, acting with compassion.

Morality has not been a choice for most humans for thousands of years. We are taught our morality by our parents in one for or another, as was previous pointed out here a child that is love and cared for will most likely be a well adjusted adult. A child that is ill treated will grow up to be a killer. (By the way, I don’t agree with that statement either. But that is another topic ) The common belief is that the child was given the correct tools by his loving parents and the incorrect tools by the abusive parents. But were they really??? To be honest I still think it is a choice as to how you will lead your adult life and what morals you will care into it and keep dear to your heart.

Just to add to this. I don't think that it is as simple as good parenting = moral person, poor/abusive parenting = amoral/immoral person. What I was saying about children and attachment is that the child must perceive the love, and that this sometimes doesn't happen due to physiological conditions (genetics? illness??), sometimes due to nurturing conditions (abandonment, mother/parent is ill/otherwise unavailable??), and combinations of the two. I think some children are very resilient and could survive abuse and still be well-adjusted, moral, and some children could be raised from birth in a loving home and still not be. I am far from putting this all on parents (being a parent of adopted children myself). Each child is born with its own way of experiencing the world, and yes, personal responsibility and choice are part of that experience.

cheers!

 

[lunamoth]

Dear granni,

Welcome to CR! Thanks for your wonderful post, and the poem.

it's that love thy neighbor stuff. a thing most difficult for most. yet, we try.

.

Personal policy--beliefs in action.

cheers!

 

[lunamoth]

Re: children and clay

Dear Jt3,

Thank you for your well-thought reply. (blushing from your kind words)

I am not certain I agree. I am thinking love is distinct from morality. I rather like your earlier discription, in that morality lies in the "tension" between love and spirit. I may be incorrect in this, but so far it seems to me the best explanation yet that I have seen.

You and LS have now developed the concepts of compassion and morality quite well. I concede that I have oversimplified things. For me, Love, compassion, conscience, morality are all facets of the same thing. However, the distinctions you have made are interesting and helpful to the conversation.

I believe I said ealier that human morality lies in the tension between our animal/material/ nature (not intending any insult to animals!), which chooses to do what feels best for ourself at the moment and our divine nature, which I envision as a state of such perfect Love/Unity and denial of Ego Self that we can not hope to achieve it in this life, except perhaps fleetingly. The tension comes from the constant choosing to try.

If love and spirit both are eternal, and universal morality lies between, it would seem to me eternal as well. Yet, even though these may be eternal, not every individual expresses these in the same way. A paradox that, if they are universal, why are they not expressed in the same (or at least very similar) manners? No two moralities are the same, as no two loves or spirits.

I think my simplifications of things have tripped us up here. For the record, I believe that we are spirit (we just happen to have a body, which means that we have choices to make and things to learn along the way. I like your idea of life as learning and death as graduation. Although I also believe in grad school....)

If I am reading you correctly, the elements of morality, love and spirit are present, but must be developed? Nature and nurture?

Well, yes nature and nurture are both important for the development of the mind and body and soul. But these both come from the same source, ultimately. I think of each person as having a potential that they can reach in this life and biology, nurturing, experiences/circumstances beyond one's control, and choice all effect how much of that potential is realized.

Ah yes, abnormal psych! Since I am not a psych student (in the formal sense), I really didn't get into that stuff too deeply, but if I recall you are correct. Of course, this fuels the position that internal morality is taught; if it is not taught, that person has no morality. If internal morality is only taught, it cannot seem to be universal. Does a child's conscience at the age of accountability happen of its own, or must it be placed there by parents or whoever?

I am not a student of psychology. What I know about this I am learning through the trials and joys of parenting. What I am saying is not that internal morality is taught--but it is affected by nurturing. Like a seed. Will it grow and flourish or will it be stunted? And, as I said above in different words, some seeds can grow and flourish in the desert, while others will not thrive even with the best of care. However, we each have the responsibility to do the best we can. This is what God expects of us.

I can't say this any other way except that it is something I have faith in (as I, Brian pointed out so long ago). That basis for our love, compassion and morality is seated in our soul and expressed in our lives.

I like the analogy of mud vs porcelain. And I agree about a morally healthy society. I would add though, that "morally healthy" has significantly different connotations across cultures.

I agree, but I would put respect for the basic nurturing of children as a value that can't be comprimised in any culture or society, whatever form that may take (i.e., nannies and day-care in the USA or being snuggled under mom's breasts in the fields all day).

OK, but this returns us to religion and politics, which are the source(s) of those laws. I accept you are alluding to present day western politics and culture here, because children have been raised successfully for millenia without social services. I might be willing to concede that "it takes a village to raise a child" (Hillary got that much correct), that is, neighbors should pitch in to help each other, including child rearing. And historically, they have. That is called "society."

Well, I was tempted, but I am going to avoid getting to politics and the pros and cons of modern society here or elsewhere.

I can't resist the momentary digression into the battle of the bumperstickers!

"God is dead" -Nietschze
"Nietschze is dead" -God

Now that I've got that out of my system...

Of course, this reasoning challenges the position that thoughts alone create reality, which is alright by me. (As in: "are we created in God's image, or do we create gods in our image?")

Getting a bit too deep for me here. I believe I am a soul, and what that means I don't fully know but I hope to at some time, hopefully in whatever comes Next. I do think that by created in God's image it is not referring to what we look like.

Indeed! Vaj puts it nicely I think, in that religion is a vehicle, a means or way to discover truth(s). Those of us here I think are questioning souls. If God exists (and I believe He/She/It does), then He can handle being questioned. How else can we learn, unless we are free to question authority, if nowhere else than our minds?

Vaj always puts it nicely, and so do you!

cheers!

 

[alexa]

Bundy and Rollins did have morality. Perhaps not what we would view as morality but remember, just because we do not approve or it or even perhaps understand it, does not mean that it is not there.

Having morality does not mean that the morals are "good" it just means that you have a code by which you live. Personally, I do not beleive that there is such a thing as an amoral person. I beleive that they have a morality just one that I do not understand.

Hmm. My mistake, I agree. I was thinking in a positive sense for the concept of morality. That's for sure, I cannot understand the morality of somebody who thinks killing another human being is right.

 

[alexa]

Dear Juan,

Do you realize you have offered me your friend, Lady_Selune as an ally ? You remember I have taken the earth based religions for myself ? I knew since the beginning I could read as many books as I wanted to, but I'll never understood the inside knowledge, as I wasn't trained for. So, I bless a shaman's presence here, especially if we are talking about a friend, too.

OK, animals "speak" too. We may not (fully) understand their language, but they communicate among themselves quite well./QUOTE]

I know animals "speak" too. I was thinking more of an articulate communication. I have no idea how many languages are presently on Earth, but I'm sure there are no many to speak more than 3-4 fluently. No animal was able to create so many things as humans. And I don't think an animal tries to explain for itself the meaning of its presence on Earth.

I love to think life is for learning, death is graduation. When my time comes, be happy for me, I graduated!

Hmm. Vaj won't agree with this one. Death opens another side of existance. I do not believe in re-incarnation, but I know death is not the end. If you still have un-solved problems you'll take them with you. Worse, you have to deel only with them. Only those who are able to take their souls in a higher level, they'll find peace after death.

I had never heard this before.

I was born in Romania. As we took a lot of latin's tradition, I'm not entirely sure if this is only a Romanian proverb. I know Romanians use a lot this is expression. They usually do not say you are impolite, but you have no your seven years from home, or no education at all.

I realized after I made the remark that not all Christians do think of Jesus as God incarnate, but it is the orthodox stance in every tradition/sect/denomination I am familiar with.

My mother's family is very religious (orthodox christians). Instead my father's are atheits. I grow up between the two of them and I didn't know for a long time what to believe. As I could't see God, I was inclined to agree with my father's side and I really thought the Bible was only a story for children. I had to touch the ground after a very nasty experience to realize I was wrong. I had to be very close to death for many years to really understand. I believe in Jesus. I believe also, he was human like us and that's why he said he was the way. Those who really understand his teachings can do the same things as Jesus. I don't mean a perokee of a prist teaching. You have to have the feeling "I AM" as Jesus had.

The Christian teaching has to do with the tower of Babel. I haven't really heard a good scientific answer, other than possibly multiple sources (Africa and Eurasia).

Different cultures, different histories and traditions.

Well, yes. I was created (invented), and by Vaj's definition I am in flux (illusion). So I am still not certain about conscience and morality. If anything, I have more questions now than before I began. Is this line of questioning unanswerable?

Some think children are tiresoms as they keep asking the eternal WHY ? I think I'm still a child, as I keep asking why the things are done as they are.
Just ask them, Juan ! You are not alone here.

Alexa

 

[alexa]

I believe compassion is soemthing that everyone is born with. I also beleive that it is something that can be burned out of you if you let it. You can become jaded, unwilling to feel compassion or even have deaded you ear to its call. Once you have done that you lose the ability to truly respect or love anything else. Why? Because again, compassion is what gives you the ability to truly see what the other is.

I am not sure everybody is born with compassion. You have to be born with an "old" soul or to live difficult experiences to feel compassion for another being.

I do not believe Bundy felt any kind of compassion for his victimes. Rollins is a psychopath, so I do not think compassion means the same thing for him as for a normal person.

It is also a difference in belief systems. My path does not teach love, it teaches compassion and from that choice. My belief tells me that I may do as I will, rather it be good or bad, I am the one in the end that will answer for what I have done, no one else. It is my choice.

I agree.

 

[lunamoth]

Related tp Alexa's last post (edit--not the last post, but #284). I, too, was using morality to mean adherance to actions that are generally understood to be good, or at least not intentionally harmful, for those around you. Going by LS's descriptions, I would not say that Bundy acted with morality, and if he was not amoral (lacking moral sensibility), then he certainly was immoral rather than moral. Rollins' sounds like he was amoral--incapable of distinguishing right from wrong. If Rollins' beliefs and actions were only a mirror of those around him, plus an instinctual response to stop the source of the pain from wherever it is perceived, then he did not have his own sense of morality.

It's hard to believe that any human being could be truely amoral and functioning independently in society. Maybe Rollins had a kind of immature morality, related to the immature development of his intellect. This kind of stuff is way beyond my expertise or even casual knowledge, but I thought that the death penelty could not be invoked for crimes committed by persons who did not understand that what they did was wrong.

P.S. Here I am using morality in the conventional sense, the adherence to right and wrong as it is accepted by society. As for my idea of the universal morality of Love in this picture, I would say that it is hidden under a basket or obscured in the cases of the killers. And as for our compassion for them, well, that's where the tension is in play. Easier for me than for the families of their victims.

 

[Lady_Selune]

Dear Lady Selune,

Great post! And welcome to CR and this thread. Hope you are able to stay around for more of this and other conversations.

Thanks for the warm welcome. I do think I will be sticking around here awhile. I find the dicussions to be quite interesting.

Ok, now that you have put the child thing in a different light I do agree.

 

[Lady_Selune]

Dear Juan,

Do you realize you have offered me your friend, Lady_Selune as an ally ? You remember I have taken the earth based religions for myself ? I knew since the beginning I could read as many books as I wanted to, but I'll never understood the inside knowledge, as I wasn't trained for. So, I bless a shaman's presence here, especially if we are talking about a friend, too.

Why thank you, that is very kind of you. Feel free to e-mail me with any questions that you have and I will endeavor to answer them. I can't promise that I have all the answers, but I can promise that if I don't have the answer I most likely know someone that does. =)

 

[Lady_Selune]

I am not sure everybody is born with compassion. You have to be born with an "old" soul or to live difficult experiences to feel compassion for another being.

Interesting, I would say its sort of the opposite way around on this one. I think everyone is born with compassion but the difficult experiences in thier lives can burn it out of them or cause it to be hidden very deeply.

I do not believe Bundy felt any kind of compassion for his victimes. Rollins is a psychopath, so I do not think compassion means the same thing for him as for a normal person.

I agree with you Bundy did not feel compassion for his victims. He did feel a gerat deal fo compassion for his mother and often expressed worry that she would not be taken care of when he was gone.

I totally disagree with you about Rollins (and this one might actually be my fault) He is mentally retarded. He has perhaps the intellectual level of a 10 year old. But his emotionally level is more like an infant really. It appears to me after intervewing him that he has a very strong sense of others but also seeks to please those others in any way he can. The problem here is he does not have a childs body, he is a very large man. When a child would throw a temper tantum no one is usually hurt, if Rollins did it, well someone would clearly be hurt. Although surprisingly given how many years he has been locked up now there are no recorded incidents of him every displaying temper.

 

[Lady_Selune]

Related tp Alexa's last post (edit--not the last post, but #284). I, too, was using morality to mean adherance to actions that are generally understood to be good, or at least not intentionally harmful, for those around you. Going by LS's descriptions, I would not say that Bundy acted with morality, and if he was not amoral (lacking moral sensibility), then he certainly was immoral rather than moral. Rollins' sounds like he was amoral--incapable of distinguishing right from wrong. If Rollins' beliefs and actions were only a mirror of those around him, plus an instinctual response to stop the source of the pain from wherever it is perceived, then he did not have his own sense of morality.

hehe, ok, let me explain how I view morality and it might help clear this up a bit.

1. moralilty is what I beleive is right and wrong AND making the choice to do what is right.

2. I do not apply my morality to others as I have no right to do so.

3. I accept that I might not always agree with others morality. (In this case just as horrible as I see Bundy's set of morals to be I find people in everday life that have not gone out and killed people like he did but thought the choices they make (given thier morality) have allow thousands to die in thier name or injury the Mother to a point where she can not recover)

3. I agree that as a society we must have law. Our law most times reflects our morality (even in the cases where it just simply goes to far).

Therefore, even though I don't agree with Bundy's morality, I know and accept that he has morality. It is just not the type of thing I can readily understand as I have never felt myself superior to those around me. More importantly I have never felt so superior to anything around me that I felt that gave me the right to do with thier lives as I willed.

Ted once asked me why I toleranted those around me at the time. Before I could answer he continued with what he was saying (he really did love the sound of his own voice). What he said gave me a look into him that chilled me, he said that he could see that I was intellectually superior to those around me and could not understand why I didn't just use them to get what I wanted in life. Of course he went on to explain to me what he thought I wanted (or at least should want given the fact that he beleived me to be intellectually superior) My point here is that Ted did not beleive that killing those girls was wrong, he truly believed that he had a right to do it.

So even though I don't like his set of morals I can not say that mine are better then his. He made the choice in his life what was going to be good and bad to him. He knew in making those choices that society did not support them, but he chose them anyways. The fact is that in another time and place he would have not been doing anything wrong. Had he been a king a thousand years ago, it would have been expected that he would use his subjects as he seen fit to do. No wait, if he had simply been in another country and held a postion of power there his actions might not have been seen as all that bad.

It is exteremly dangerous I beleive to assume that there are moral and amoral people. I personally do not favor using any type of labels to begin with, but in this case the question is begged, does that make me amoral because my morals are different from yous? (and no, I don't beleive in killing people for pleasure, but I am tryign to make a point here )

It's hard to believe that any human being could be truely amoral and functioning independently in society. Maybe Rollins had a kind of immature morality, related to the immature development of his intellect. This kind of stuff is way beyond my expertise or even casual knowledge, but I thought that the death penelty could not be invoked for crimes committed by persons who did not understand that what they did was wrong.

To be honest, Rollin's case is why beyond my experience as well. I can only go by my expereinces with him and what I seen happen to him. As far as the legal side of it, his attorny did his best to one get the trial moved from the local city, since this is where all the murders took place, when that failed, he also tried to get Danny declared incompetent to stand trial. He had a lot of doctors that agreed with him but what it all came down to was that the girls and one of the guys that was murdered all came from very weathly families. They wanted his blood in return for the taking of thier childrens blood, in a sense I do not fault them at all. I know Danny killed those people, I have no doubt in my mind of that, I also know he was lead to do so. Either way it does not matter, Danny will pay for his "sins" with his own life.

Now here is the part that gets me in trouble (and beleive me I would never speak of these things in public where I live, it would just not be wise to do so). I feel a great deal of compassion for Danny, he will go to his death never really understanding why. Its real hard to explain it to him since in the cell next to him he watched the security officers beat an inmate to death. How do you explain that one to him. Now, on the other hand, I feel a great deal of compassion for the parents of the college students that were murdered. I have two adult daughters of my own, I know the pain of losing a child (even though I have not lost mine, see a post I made in Spirits for an explanation of that) and I would never want that to happen to my own.

Fact is I am not sure what the moral right or wrongs are here. I only know that as I said before I will grieve for Danny, no one else will. And when the time comes if he needs help finding his way, as always I will be there to help him. Was I there for Ted, well no, that was something that I could not do. He did in fact make his own choices with full knowledge of what that meant.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

Dear Juan,

Do you realize you have offered me your friend, Lady_Selune as an ally ?

Hmmm, being gang tackled by two beautiful women at once...how is this a bad thing?

 

[alexa]

I totally disagree with you about Rollins (and this one might actually be my fault) He is mentally retarded. He has perhaps the intellectual level of a 10 year old. But his emotionally level is more like an infant really.

Well, I didn't have the courage to label him as mentally retarded, as I didn't know him in person, but I suspected his illness after reading your post. That's why I say he has not the same perception as a normal person. It's sad, but his place is in a mentaly institution and not in a jail.

 

[alexa]

Hmmm, being gang tackled by two beautiful women at once...how is this a bad thing?

Nope, this is not a bad thing for you, just a very interesting one !

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Juan,

thank you for the post.

I think I understand this, and can see that I applied the concept in a more liberal manner than is traditional. Semantic misunderstandings are too often a source of discord among people. Surely the goal of the teaching is to minimize discord as much as convey the essence of intent?

i agree.

i'm not convinced that is the goal of the teachings.. it often appears to me that a proper cognition of the teachings creates a lot of discord in one's normal worldview.

whilst this may be the intended effect, it can be quite disconcerting for beings that are not prepared for it. so much so that some will lash out in anger and frustration when confounded by the lack of self, for instance.

the teachings are a guide, a marker along the way, they are not the path. sometimes, one requires discord to be motivated to move along the path.

 

[Lady_Selune]

Well, I didn't have the courage to label him as mentally retarded, as I didn't know him in person, but I suspected his illness after reading your post. That's why I say he has not the same perception as a normal person. It's sad, but his place is in a mentaly institution and not in a jail.

I agree, his lawyer did try for that but as I indicated ealier he was not able to get it. The whole thing was more of a blood hunt then a trial. People were afraid and upset, they needed a scapegaot and Rollins was an easy target.

 

[Lady_Selune]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!
Hmmm, being gang tackled by two beautiful women at once...how is this a bad thing?

Why thank you sweetie, how very nice of you to notice. and I agree with Alexa, interesting!

 

[Lady_Selune]

i'm not convinced that is the goal of the teachings.. it often appears to me that a proper cognition of the teachings creates a lot of discord in one's normal worldview.

I have always believe that gaining knowledge was an avenue to creating confusion in my mind. Just when I thought I had things figured out I would learn soemthing new that would throw my new understanding out the window. Oh course I am happy to say that not a day goes by that I don't learn something new. Does this mean I am always in a state of confusion, no, it means that the path I found keeps me at peace, the new knowledge finds it place in my mind and it will at some point become clear to me where it goes in the grand scheme of my mind.

the teachings are a guide, a marker along the way, they are not the path. sometimes, one requires discord to be motivated to move along the path.

How very well put.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

Now that it seems we are fairly well caught up...(time to throw in the next monkey wrench! HAHAHAHA! )

The thought occurred to me, that morality, at least in the more general sense, might be an appeal to "fairness." I had thought of a number of examples, lets see if I can recall them. Like a child saying "no fair, do over!" Or the continuous appeal for economic redistribution to make things "more equal." Or the basis of the US Constitution in claiming that "All men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights..."

Of course, the last two examples play heavily into politics, which themselves influence and are influenced by a culture's morality, usually in the more formal, "legal" sense. I think at this point people have a general tendency towards believing that life should treat them fairly, that they should have an equal shot at any and every thing good this life has to offer. (I am intentionally overlooking the concept and aspect of responsibility for the moment)

But this is not the lesson nature provides us. Now, before I continue, I have to qualify what I am about to say. (Lady Selune knows the legalist in me, it drives my proffessors nuts sometimes...)

*I emphatically agree with and believe in equality in the political sense, with no reservations or conditions.*

That having been said, the concept of equality could in no way have come from nature. No two people are born alike. Forget socio-economic status, wealth and silver spoons. How about intellect? How about health? How about stature? How about strength or speed? How about physical beauty and attractiveness? This is the same among animals. Nature does not create anything "equal."

Now, I am aware this is a hazardous path to pursue in conversation here, so I want to remind that:

*We really need to leave the political concepts of racial superiority out of this discussion.* (As a courtesy to this site, and to Brian)

But the fact remains, some people are better capable in certain aspects, and not in others. To return to John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, "all men are created equal." At the time those words were written, the meaning was distinctly "free white land-owning tax-paying Christian males." It is only as the political concept enlarged over time that others were included, so that now, for the most part, western cultures try to be as all inclusive as reasonably possible (although some may differ with my use here of the term "reasonably").

Nature does not teach us this, regardless of some of the rhetoric I have seen written. Yet, we all pretty much accept the premise, to the point of demanding equality, even far beyond the field of politics. To return to the child's innate understanding of fairplay and equality, where does this stem from? A child cannot possibly be concerned with Locke's politics. Does it stem from a religious upbringing that teaches that God looks upon His children equally, that a wrong is a wrong is a wrong? Likewise, a right is a right is a right? Or maybe it is a spiritual intuition that guides a child into believing in a sense of fairplay? It certainly cannot be natural, nature teaches "here you are sucker, do something about it or die." (or at least something like this) Even among social animals, what sense of equality? The bull male basically tells the herd what to do, what equality in that? So our innate sense of equality and fairplay seems to me not natural, or at least not readily described by natural selection (evolution). Is this perhaps an indicator that conscience stems from a super-natural (that is, non-evolutionary) source?

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Lady_Selune,

thank you for the post and welcome to the forum

enjoy your stay!

I have always believe that gaining knowledge was an avenue to creating confusion in my mind. Just when I thought I had things figured out I would learn soemthing new that would throw my new understanding out the window.

i agree with you. of course, not all beings are like that.. many find the approach of the rational to be quite appealing. it is my view that the real issue in this approach, not that the others are immune to issues, is that one can confuse the theory for the praxis. mistaking their understanding of the concept for achievement in the concept. if that makes sense

Oh course I am happy to say that not a day goes by that I don't learn something new. Does this mean I am always in a state of confusion, no, it means that the path I found keeps me at peace, the new knowledge finds it place in my mind and it will at some point become clear to me where it goes in the grand scheme of my mind.

i often find this to be the case when i'm re-reading some religous texts. it's particularly true if i'm staying within the same overall paradigm and not jumping from one to another very quickly.

to take the conversation a bit further afield than it is now.. i have a thought about why this may be.. ok, i confess.. these really old Chinese guys had this thought first... but... it's a good thought!

when a person thinks of something, say the house at the lake, they are thinking in pictures.. symbols, if you will, that represent the concept to the thinker. symbols can come in a variety of fashions, words are symbols to convey thoughts and ideas to others via the written media... it is my view that this symbol set can interact with the original spirit... or as you like to call it in the west, the subconscious. in any case, no matter what you call it, this aspect of consciousness is not bound by our normal sense of time.. when the meaning of the symbol is unlocked, the meaning will just suddenly flash across you and it's as if you've known the information for your entire life.

eh... it's late and i'm rambling