18 Jun 08
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdLet me try again. You seem insistent on seeing this as an issue of "preserv[ing] [my] own moral sanctity" or avoiding "moral guilt" as if this is the only explanation.
I got booted out when I tried make my post above, and thought it did not post. Haven’t been back since, and I just decided to let it go.
The Skipper, I think, provided a good example. Generally, the scenario I see is this:
1) One person is harming or attempting to harm an innocent person (murder, permanent disablement, torture, child rape̵ ...[text shortened]... sm”. I don’t think so, but that’s a matter for my own ongoing self-vigilence.
In a way it seems like you visualize moral principles as being independent of "preventing suffering" if you will. So you see the action to "prevent suffering" as "trumping" your moral principles.
I see you as placing "preventing suffering" at (or near) the top of your moral principles. So I don't see it as a question of preserving your moral principles, it's about doing what you believe is right.
I don't place "preventing suffering" as high as you. So I don't see it as a question of preserving my moral principles, it's about doing what I believe is right.
Hope this is clearer.
PM me if you want to continue this discussion.
19 Jun 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI see you as placing "preventing suffering" at (or near) the top of your moral principles. So I don't see it as a question of preserving your moral principles, it's about doing what you believe is right.
Let me try again. You seem insistent on seeing this as an issue of "preserv[ing] [my] own moral sanctity" or avoiding "moral guilt" as if this is the only explanation.
In a way it seems like you visualize moral principles as being independent of "preventing suffering" if you will. So you see the action to "prevent suffering" as "trumping" your moral pr ...[text shortened]... t.
Hope this is clearer.
PM me if you want to continue this discussion.
I don't place "preventing suffering" as high as you. So I don't see it as a question of preserving my moral principles, it's about doing what I believe is right.
That is clearer. And I stand corrected. My apologies for mis-judging your motivations on that score.
And you’re right about preventing suffering being at or near the top, along with trying to recognize what LemonJello has called moral “patients” as well as moral agents in any given situation. I also place consideration of harm that might befall another due to my actions high on the moral totem-pole.
My moral decisions (patchwork as they may be) are grounded—at least I try to ground them—in actuality. I try not to impose a one-size-fits all moral map, drawn from whatever source, onto any and every terrain. Twhitehead once gave a good example of what I mean: I hold that slavery is generally morally wrong; however it might not be morally wrong for me to purchase slaves from a brutal slaveholder (or to prevent such from purchasing them) in order to prevent their being brutalized and to set them free in a safe place. On the other hand, if such an action is morally wrong, and even if I believed it to be morally wrong according to some general moral principle (i.e., that slavery is always and everywhere morally wrong), I will still choose it over the alternative (assuming there is not apparent in the situation some more effective alternative).
Or, perhaps Oskar Schindler’s efforts to save Jews from the Nazis by having them work in his factories is a real-world example. Even though he had to bribe, cheat and lie to do so.
Frankly, I am not sure that I could articulate any morality that is not based in concern for the well-being of the other (since, absent such concern, I naturally care for my own well-being). And I do not see the perpetrator of harm as being as deserving of my concern (in the particular situation) as his/her victim, such that I ought to allow the harm to the victim by refusing to act if such action will cause harm to the perpetrator.
19 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesd[/b]Maybe I don't understand the slave example.
[b]I see you as placing "preventing suffering" at (or near) the top of your moral principles. So I don't see it as a question of preserving your moral principles, it's about doing what you believe is right.
I don't place "preventing suffering" as high as you. So I don't see it as a question of preserving my moral principles, it's about doing what I belie ...[text shortened]... arm to the victim by refusing to act if such action will cause harm to the perpetrator.
Are you purchasing a slave or are you purchasing a slave's freedom?
I found the terms "actuality" and "well-being" interesting.
What is "actuality"? Do you recognize the concept of "veils of illusion"?
You spoke of "well-being" in terms of "the other" OR "my own". Do you recognize the concept of "the whole"?
Do you recognize "well-being" as being not necessarily synonymous with "preventing suffering"?
19 Jun 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIf the slave can safely be set free, I am buying the slave in order to set her free; I am not legally buying her freedom. (That was not clear; I was assuming a situation where to publicly set the slave free would not be safe. Perhaps the Schindler example is better.)
Maybe I don't understand the slave example.
Are you purchasing a slave or are you purchasing a slave's freedom?
I found the terms "actuality" and "well-being" interesting.
What is "actuality"? Do you recognize the concept of "veils of illusion"?
You spoke of "well-being" in terms of "the other" OR "my own". Do you recognize the concept of ...[text shortened]... ll-being" as being not necessarily synonymous with "preventing suffering"?[/b]
I have many times spoken about “veils of illusion.” Such veils are generated by the thinking/conceptualizing mind. The actual world is tathata: the just-so-suchness of this here-now, before thinking about it. It includes us inseparably. The fact that we are limited by both our physical sense-perception and the natural grammar of our consciousness is no reason to speculate some fantasy world behind the actual one, in which, say the people we see as suffering are all really wonderfully well and happy.
Again, I have written many times over the years on here about “the whole”: the all-without-another, etc., etc. Do you understand the concept of figure/ground? There is no identifiable figure absent a ground against which it can be identified; that does not mean that the ground is real and the figure illusion. To see the one (the whole) and not the many is illusion; to see the many and not the whole is also illusion. To see the whole, and not the individual “other” walking toward you down the street is illusion; not to perceive you and the other as both manifestations of the whole is also illusion.
I’m not sure how well-grounded you are here. I’m not sure to what extent you have realized non-dualism. I’m not sure to what extent you realize that maya just is Brahman, too. (These things are difficult to communicate on here—I know; I’ve tried often enough.) Of course, not all non-dualists reach the same moral conclusions.
“Well-being” is not necessarily synonymous with not suffering in the sense that there can be exceptions: e.g., a healing process that is necessarily short-term painful—but the healing process is associated with well-being. Physical suffering is not the same as mental suffering (anguish: the dukkhas that the Buddha spoke of). But it is not possible to increase well-being by raping/torturing/murdering a child—to pick a deliberately egregious example instead of some generality.
Do you know what a bodhisattva is? [This should all be in the Spirituality forum, but I am now assuming that you have never read what I wrote on this stuff over there.] I’ll leave you with this Zen koan:
Behind the makings of your mind,
before all thoughts, concepts, or words—
What is illusion? What is real? What is morality?
19 Jun 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAre Neanderthals intelligent?
No, you called them Neandertals, not dumb.
Surely you think some people are Neanderthal-like. Like me, for example. More people probably hate me in this forum than anyone except maybe DSR. I know you would never call me a Neanderthal to my face, but I have no idea how often you curse whenever you read my posts in front of that computer.
19 Jun 08
2 edits
Originally posted by scherzoYou give yourself too much credit.
Are Neanderthals intelligent?
Surely you think some people are Neanderthal-like. Like me, for example. More people probably hate me in this forum than anyone except maybe DSR. I know you would never call me a Neanderthal to my face, but I have no idea how often you curse whenever you read my posts in front of that computer.
Did you know Neandertals had bigger brains than we do? I have no idea how intelligent they were except that they were smart enough to make and use technology but not smart enough to take us on. That doesn't mean we're smarter; maybe we're just better at throwing things. Neandertal spears don't seem to be made for throwing and their injuries and shoulder joints don't seem to be consistent with throwing spears either.
T.D. Berger and E. Trinkaus (1995). "Patterns of trauma among Neadertals". Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 841–852. doi:10.1016/0305-4403(95)90013-6.
20 Jun 08
Originally posted by vistesdI assume that you're talking about buying the slave to give her sanctuary. Within this sanctuary, is she a slave or free? Is she free to leave the sanctuary if she so chooses? Legality has nothing to do with it. You'd still be buying her freedom, not a slave.
If the slave can safely be set free, I am buying the slave in order to set her free; I am not legally buying her freedom. (That was not clear; I was assuming a situation where to publicly set the slave free would not be safe. Perhaps the Schindler example is better.)
I have many times spoken about “veils of illusion.” Such veils ar ...[text shortened]... ] all thoughts, concepts, or words—
What is illusion? What is real? What is morality?
Let's look at "veils of illusion" in terms of being unable to see reality because of "ego", i.e., desires of the self. For example, a child becomes attached to a blanket and sees it as a source of comfort. Later the child sees the blanket as a blanket. Which is reality?
I'm familiar with the term bodhisattva, though I'm pretty sure we have different conceptions of "enlightenment". Why do you ask?
"The fact that we are limited by both our physical sense-perception and the natural grammar of our consciousness is no reason to speculate some fantasy world behind the actual one, in which, say the people we see as suffering are all really wonderfully well and happy."
If you're implying that this is my position, I hope you will recognize that this is purely an inference on your part.