spirituality 09.pdf

7/29/2019 spirituality 09.pdf

1/6

spirituality - lesson 9: ethics / morals

as individuals our central and very human desire is to lead a happy life. we aim to

function from day to day in a happy manner and enjoy being able to exercise ourpersonal capacities whilst fitting into a social context. in terms of the collective,how can a mass of people all enjoy happiness without upsetting any individual? ithas been through morals that people have tried to come to some sort ofresolution of the problem!

ethicsgood and evil / right and wrong; these are fairly obscure constructs, each withwavering boundaries that set them apart. their definitions, however, are importantin the pursuit of self interest and have an establishment that goes back to theearliest times of human society. we can all agree that 'good' brings about

beneficial results and that 'bad' brings about negative results. this the basis of auniversal standard of judgement.

ethics are primarily concerned with principles of right and wrong and how theygovern behaviour of the human character. ethics are thus internally defined andadopted, whilst morals tend to be externally imposed on other people. there is along tradition in ethics that places great importance on the kind of person one is.we not only want those around us to tell the truth but also to be honest. botharistotle and aquinas emphasized this aspect of ethics by highlighting the role ofwhat we would today call character in their discussions of ethics. a practicalconsequence of this view is that the education of, for example medical doctors,

should include the cultivation of virtues such as compassion, discernment,trustworthiness, integrity, conscientiousness as well as benevolence (desire tohelp) and nonmalevolence (desire to avoid harm).


2/6

moralsthere is a distinction between morals and mores - the latter can be defined asharmless customs, the former as treatment of others. we thus judge othersmore strongly on morals than erthics. a code of interpersonal behaviour which isconsidered correct and right in a particular society, these are morals. howeverthe principles of proper conduct differ between countries and belief systems.

moralities are relative what one society considers right, another society considerswrong. therefore, RIGHT AND WRONG here are RELATIVE to a PARTICULARSOCIETY. YOU, as individual, have no morality, except on the one hand themorality that society which you have built tells you, and on the other hand whatyou want to do, and neither has anything whatsoever to do with virtue.

most people believe that history proceeds in progressive steps: throughenlightenment and rationality, and particularly through science and technology,humanity is on the road towards harmony and peace. this myth of moral progressin modernity was however exposed by auschwitz and hiroshima. these eventsconfirmed that there is no linear progressive process and thus the suggestion of

moral progress is misleading.

a short excurse on philosophical systems aristotle spoke of the 'golden mean', amidway point between extreme behaviours. these virtues aimed to create abalanced personality that when used throughout a community would produce areasonable state of group happiness. this is a doctrine of moderation,encouraging qualities of courage, modesty and generosity.

this idea was later fortified by the stoics: live a life of moderation, self disciplineand altruism, and you are more likely to lead to a life of practical happiness. theybelieved that there must be an indifference to pain for collective happiness to

exist. it is this line of thought that laid foundation to the judaeo-christian valuesystems.


3/6

immanuel kant believed that everything that we know and understand is down toscience, and whilst we may not know and understand everything in our physicalworld now science will, in the end, provide us with answers. what can't beexplained with science is the reasons why the material human being, whichmoves in space and time, is governed by something other than scientific laws.the explanation kant came up with is 'free will' and a plain of reality that does notexist in the physical, phenomenal world but in the noumenal world. what thismeans is that concepts of 'good' and 'right' only have content when there is theability to choose to against them. if there is no ability to choose (no free will) thenthese concepts do not exist and there is no such thing as duty. if, with out freewill, there is no notions of 'bad' and 'wrong' then there can never be any feelingsof injustice or complaint and morality becomes an illusion.

determinism, however, is impossible. even the most genuine believer, whether acriminal or psychopath, will still have feelings of injustice and believe thatsomeone else should not have acted in a certain way, which immediatelydisproves any idea no free choice.

kant believed that the knowledge of moral duty meant that rational humans werebound to obey the categorical imperative to respect other rational beings. arthurschopenhauer, an avid follower of kant, disagreed with this theory and took theidea of free will further. shopenhauer stated that the foundation of ethics andinterpersonal relationships is universal compassion beyond a physical or rationalreality. his view was that if we are individuals in the physical world then we areone and undifferentiated in the noumenal world. this then explains compassion,the sharing of sufferings; if I hurt you I am damaging my own ultimate being.

the foundation of many of the morals that have influenced modern societies

began in the roman and judaeo-christian eras and simultaniously ancient easternphilosophies. this is something that friedrich nietzsche objected to, saying that in


4/6

light of a modern godless world these morals should be reassessed as they werefirst made in societies that were very unlike the ones today.

he believed that the current value systems were only to make the natural leaderson the same footing as the weak, leading to a life of self denial, self sacrifice andservice to others for all. therefore, if these morals are not passed on to us by agod they are not transcendental and so they must be man made. this means that

man is free to choose the set of values he wishes to live by. this led tonietzsche's theory of life assertion - saying yes to life and that 'one must dare tobecome what you are'. nietzsches ideas were ruthless and machiavellian but thistheory of self satisfaction is not restrained to his beliefs alone.

the state as a moral governancetoday we find ourselves more and more often constructing moral conduct onhumane values rather than models of god or the commands of religiousinstitutions. the other strong influence on morals and ethics are the state laws bywhich we live under in each country. these legal guidlines, and the police thatproct them, are the basis for moral conduct within a certain culture, some are

created with a religious ideology, and otherswithout divine help.

in 4th century china, a group call the legalists suggested that laws wereirrelavent, it was the adhereing to them that was really important. ethis to themwas something that destroyed the state. this was the complete opposite of mostthinking which sought to bring man made law more in in line with divine andnatural laws. but no political or moral set of laws has successfully provided theanswer to balancing freedom and force of free will for all.

moral authority and dogma

to study the various systems, philosophic as well as economic, to study them allthoroughly so as to be able to compare, requires great effort, and few have thetime, the capacity, or the inclination, to penetrate through their complicatedreasoning and theories. and what happens when you haven't time to inquire intothe explanations of innumerable competing experts? you choose one whom youlike, who you think is reasonable; and as you haven't the time to go into hissystem thoroughly, you merely accept his authority. greater the expert, greaterthe authority, greater the following.

so, gradually the followers became blind and merely accept dogmas, and theleaders destroy the followers and the followers in turn destroy the leaders.gradually we create another set of stupidities based on a new set of dogmas

which were originally theories and we become slaves to them.

the whole process of living, which should be a continual fulfillment and thereforea continual penetration into reality, into what is true, is completely destroyedthrough this worship of authority, of specialists, of creeds, of theories. the wholeprocess is to make the individual subservient, to make him obey and follow. thushe gradually becomes unconscious of everything but the pattern, and he existsas much as he can within the edicts of that pattern, and he calls that living.environment becomes only the mould to shape him.

systems are but the crystallization of thought, and the group is but the expression

of that thought. can they, these crystallized thoughts, by your following them,awaken intelligence? or have you to begin, not considering yourself as an


5/6

individual, or as a group, to discern for yourself the stupidities created throughthe false division of the group and the individual; that is, not considering yourselfas an individual, or as a group, to think anew, to think from the very beginning soas to be able to grasp the true significance of each environment, each limitation?because, if we cannot be so active emotionally and mentally, apart from asystem, the mere following of a system and being active in it does not awakenintelligence. intelligence is not book knowledge. you may be very learned and yet

be stupid. you may read many philosophies and yet not know the bliss of creativethinking, which can exist only when the mind and heart begin to free themselvesthrough conflict, through constant awareness, from the stupidities of the past andfrom those that are being built up.

freedom and choicein most cultures the emphasis is on freedom of the outer aspect of life, freedomof choice and action. in order to function in the society, the individual must giveup his identity, conform to anonymous authorities and adopt successful roles. sothen, the individual does not know what he wants, what he thinks or what hefeels. usually freedom of thought is not encouraged. in our modern societiespeople are given choices and made to think they are 'free' to choose.

complete human development leads to inner freedom and the accurateperception of reality which is free from distortion. inner freedom comes from the


6/6

knowledge that one is connected with the world and other beings in the world. noone is more enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free but theirvalues are 'borrowed' introjected values conceived on the basis of culturalbeliefs.

to solve the worlds most pressing problems, people do not need more volumesof information and knowledge, they need to acquire the capacity to talk to each

other across boundaries of culture, religion and language. the plea for dialoguesounds obvious and facile. in reality, however, in many societies people haveneither time nor patience for dialogical communication. (and the mass media arenot particularly helpful in teaching societies the art of conversation. much of theircontent is babbling (endless talking without saying anything), hate speech,advertising blurbs, sound bites or polemical debate). the requirements for ameaningful discussion begin with the need for internal dialogue.

securityman has built in himself images as a fence of security - religious, political,personal morals. these manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. the burden of these

images dominates man's thinking, his relationships and his daily life. theseimages are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man. theinternal dialog implies that all participants question their judgments andassumptions independent of their cultural background (morals)... and difficult isthe suspension of judgment since we are strongly attached to our opinions andassessments and prefer them to uncertainties.

like the past generation, young people want security, certainty. they want jobs,they want food, clothing and shelter, they don't want to disagree with theirparents because it means going against society. therefore, they fall in line, theyaccept the authority of older people. so, what happens? the discontent which is

the very flame of inquiry, of search, of understanding - that discontent is mademediocre, it becomes merely a desire for a better job, or a rich marriage, or adegree. they want security, they want permanency, either in their jobs or in theirsouls. they want certainty in ideas, in relationship, or in property.

you see, there are very few people who want to live completely. because to livefully and completely, there must be freedom, not an acceptance of authority; andthere can be freedom only when there is virtue. virtue is not imitation; virtue iscreative living. either you are virtuous and free now, or you are not. and to findout why you are not free, you must have discontent, you must have the intention,the drive, the energy to encore.

spirituality 09.pdf

Documents