Religion

[Satyr]

Has religion a monopoly on morality?

The argument of Us and Them, Black & White, Good & Evil, is often used by religion to describe the world.
Since they self-define themselves, almost consistently, as ‘good’ (Us) they insinuate, and often directly state, that the opposite (because they think in absolutes and so perceive polarities) the Them is ‘evil’.

The idea is that one must believe in God to become compassionate or loving or just.
They inadvertently expose their ‘goodness’ as being a product of a threat/promise or of duplicity.

In fact moral behavior is a social phenomenon.
Ants exhibit moral behavior when they gather food for the colony or when they defend the queen against attack or when they fed her.
Dogs exhibit moral behavior towards their pack members.
Neither ant nor dog believes in an absolute nor is swayed by a threat/promise.

Moral behavior is selfishness directed through a whole.
The Other’s good becomes mine, a shared one, when the Other’s interests coincide with mine or when the Other will reciprocate in turn.
This is the basis of Karma and Morality and it is the cement which binds creatures into social cooperative structures.

In most cases hypocrisy is part of the mechanism of morality.
The individual must believe that he is acting selflessly so as to maintain and enhance the continuance of such behavior and so as to maintain his adherence to the moral system that makes selflessness a valuable virtue.
If he recognizes the selfishness, in his supposed selfless actions and beliefs, he will automatically become aware of the Other’s selfishness, in due course.
This will immediately return him to the uncertainty and anxiety of solitude and will make his continuing adherence to morality problematic.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Has religion a monopoly on morality?

The argument of Us and Them, Black & White, Good & Evil, is often used by religion to describe the world.
Since they self-define themselves, almost consistently, as ‘good’ (Us) they insinuate, and often directly state, that the opposite (because they think in absolutes and so perceive polarities) the Them is ‘evil’.

The idea is that one must believe in God to become compassionate or loving or just.
They inadvertently expose their ‘goodness’ as being a product of a threat/promise or of duplicity.

In fact moral behavior is a social phenomenon.
Ants exhibit moral behavior when they gather food for the colony or when they defend the queen against attack or when they fed her.
Dogs exhibit moral behavior towards their pack members.
Neither ant nor dog believes in an absolute nor is swayed by a threat/promise.

Moral behavior is selfishness directed through a whole.
The Other’s good becomes mine, a shared one, when the Other’s interests coincide with mine or when the Other will reciprocate in turn.
This is the basis of Karma and Morality and it is the cement which binds creatures into social cooperative structures.

In most cases hypocrisy is part of the mechanism of morality.
The individual must believe that he is acting selflessly so as to maintain and enhance the continuance of such behavior and so as to maintain his adherence to the moral system that makes selflessness a valuable virtue.
If he recognizes the selfishness, in his supposed selfless actions and beliefs, he will automatically become aware of the Other’s selfishness, in due course.
This will immediately return him to the uncertainty and anxiety of solitude and will make his continuing adherence to morality problematic.

no.

 

[Satyr]

no.

Very well thought out and stated.

I suspect it is the preferred method of communicating on this forum since it is easier to simply state than it is to debate.

I will try to adapt.

 

[swivel]

I would say obviously not, and move on to wonder if religion even has an overall positive effect on morality? Even that is debatable.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Very well thought out and stated.

I suspect it is the preferred method of communicating on this forum since it is easier to simply state than it is to debate.

I will try to adapt.

I wanted to see what inspired technique you would use to pull my opinion apart given such limited material to work on.

I also fancied a change of style. It seems to be catching on.

Imagine a world where agreement is reached faster and with ease merely because the ability to pick nits has been removed?

 

[perplexity]

Neither ant nor dog believes in an absolute nor is swayed by a threat/promise.

That is how they train dogs, with threats and promises.

The Other’s good becomes mine, a shared one, when the Other’s interests coincide with mine or when the Other will reciprocate in turn.
This is the basis of Karma ....

No, it is not.

The Buddhist doctrine of karma is about the creation of conditions which eventually come to fruition, with or without another person involved.

Pernicious thoughts harm the thinker in situ, creating bad mental habits, with or without another person involved.

Your loneliness does not protect you.

--- Ron.

 

[Cris]

Satyr,

The impression from your post seems to be that of defining morality in terms of benefit to others and I think that is only part of the story, or perhaps none of it.

The theist perspective of morality is that of absolute values defined by a deity, but ultimately the objective is a selfish one - eternal life. The perceived selflessness and benefit to others seems to be more of a by-product of selfishness.

Non-theist religions are less clear but even buddhism has the individual as the focus.

Looking at the bigger picture, morality, or the differences between good and bad, comes down to survival. The stress here is the "big picture", e.g. while killing someone for their wealth might give you a short term gain, if everyone did that the infrastructure of our civilization would break down and all would lose. Helping others in their need tends to invoke reciprocal actions where they will be motivated to help you when you are in need, hence maximizing your survival (i.e. good).

My lifestyle and moral perspectve is based on the idea that the rights of the individual are paramount, primarily a libertarian view, but with the wider perspective that my best hopes for survival are inextricably intertwined with the civilisation that supports me. To harm that may well harm me. But I am under no illusion that everything I do is for my ultimate benefit. The hypocrisy of the theist is that they claim they are doing good for the benefit of others but underneath they expect to be rewarded with eternal life. Not really sure that that claim to good is moral.

 

[pasquala]

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
no.

Originally Posted by Satyr
Very well thought out and stated

I suspect it is the preferred method of communicating on this forum since it is easier to simply state than it is to debate.

I will try to adapt.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
I wanted to see what inspired technique you would use to pull my opinion apart given such limited material to work on.

I also fancied a change of style. It seems to be catching on.

Imagine a world where agreement is reached faster and with ease merely because the ability to pick nits has been removed?

Amen

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Amen

lol

 

[The Devil Inside]

even buddhism has the individual as the focus.

uh..no.

the point of buddhism is to forget and set aside the individual.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

It is our instinct as members of a social species that is the root of morality. Solitary species have no reason to care about other individuals except in the very narrow context of reproduction. In a social species, the fortune of the individual is linked to the fortune of the pack, which is in turn linked to the fortune of all the other individuals. This is the basis for morality, and it is instinctive.

 

[superluminal]

It is our instinct as members of a social species that is the root of morality. Solitary species have no reason to care about other individuals except in the very narrow context of reproduction. In a social species, the fortune of the individual is linked to the fortune of the pack, which is in turn linked to the fortune of all the other individuals. This is the basis for morality, and it is instinctive.

Amen.

 

[Cris]

The Devil,

uh..no.

the point of buddhism is to forget and set aside the individual.

That is the methodology, the practitioner does this for himself though. If he were to gain no personal benefit what would be his motivation.

 

[lightgigantic]

QUOTE=Satyr

Has religion a monopoly on morality?


The argument of Us and Them, Black & White, Good & Evil, is often used by religion to describe the world.

Actually in religion, at leasyt the vedas anyway, there is only talk of one group - namely that all living entities have th esame constitutional nature, ie servant of god, but due to illusion (ie material conditional life), they sometimes exhibit contrary natures.

Since they self-define themselves, almost consistently, as ‘good’ (Us) they insinuate, and often directly state, that the opposite (because they think in absolutes and so perceive polarities) the Them is ‘evil’.

And according to such vedic statements there are three types of practioners - neophyte - one who can only perceve god in their place of worship and has no idea of etiquette how to deal with those who are devoted or non devoted (in other words there is me, ther is my god, and there is the world of ilusion before me) - the intermediate practioner - deals with the theists in a friendly way, avoids the envious, is compasionate to the innocent and expresses love towards god (in other words there is correctly applied discrimination)- and there is the highly advanced - doesn't see any problems with anyone because it is completely obvious to him that everyone, including a persons enlightenment or apparent level of ilusion, is being directed by the will of god - in fact they see everyone as more spiritually advanced than themselves.

The idea is that one must believe in God to become compassionate or loving or just.

One can be compassionate without god consciousness but that compassion will bear no result - in otherwords the cause will be frustrated by the vision of long term benefit - its called manda-doya - fallible compassion

They inadvertently expose their ‘goodness’ as being a product of a threat/promise or of duplicity.

Don't understand what you are getting at here

In fact moral behavior is a social phenomenon.

No doubt

Ants exhibit moral behavior when they gather food for the colony or when they defend the queen against attack or when they fed her.
Dogs exhibit moral behavior towards their pack members.
Neither ant nor dog believes in an absolute nor is swayed by a threat/promise.

Not sure if you are saying that the perception of threats bears no effect on the social structure of living entities - if you are saying that why did you mention the ants being worried about their queen?

Moral behavior is selfishness directed through a whole.

Therefore morality is, in essence, a mundane concept (only considered of value in the material world)- it bears no impact in the realm of transcendence - in other words to be good and moral may be a fine starting point for a religious practioner but it is not the summum bonum of religious practice - for instance in the BG krishna never tells arjuna "By the way it is wrong to steal" because arjuna is already on the proper platform of human existence and is not disturbed by the desire to have sex with other peoples wives and what not.

The Other’s good becomes mine, a shared one, when the Other’s interests coincide with mine or when the Other will reciprocate in turn.
This is the basis of Karma and Morality and it is the cement which binds creatures into social cooperative structures.

Therefore krishna declares that karma is not the platform of perfectional spiritual life, merely a lower rung suitable for those who are attached to the results of their activities

In most cases hypocrisy is part of the mechanism of morality.
The individual must believe that he is acting selflessly so as to maintain and enhance the continuance of such behavior and so as to maintain his adherence to the moral system that makes selflessness a valuable virtue.

First you have to establish what you mean by selflessness - for instance you have indicated above how morality is not selfless, so what is the actual platform of activity that is selfless? And does the proper performance of religion exclude that selfless action?

If he recognizes the selfishness, in his supposed selfless actions and beliefs, he will automatically become aware of the Other’s selfishness, in due course.
This will immediately return him to the uncertainty and anxiety of solitude and will make his continuing adherence to morality problematic.

There is something form the mahabharata that says when a person is in danger (ie perceives some anxiety) they take to one of four activities (provided they are an intelligent human - ie moral) study of scripture, charity, penance or sacrifice - the problem with these four acts, it continues to say, is that pride can run parrallel in the heart ("just see my learning" "Aren't I charitable" etc) - therefore if one actualy wants to be free from this pride one must please and satisfy a saintly person.

 

[The Devil Inside]

The Devil,

That is the methodology, the practitioner does this for himself though. If he were to gain no personal benefit what would be his motivation.

the point of buddhism is to become one with all of reality. this is done by setting aside the self. surely, you can see the difference.

in fact, the "self" is seen as an illusion.

 

[lightgigantic]

The Devil,

That is the methodology, the practitioner does this for himself though. If he were to gain no personal benefit what would be his motivation.

Actually Cris your views are confirmed by the Caitanya Caritamrta Madhya 19.149

"Because a devotee of Lord Kṛṣṇa is desireless, he is peaceful. Fruitive workers desire material enjoyment, jñānīs desire liberation, and yogīs desire material opulence; therefore they are all lusty and cannot be peaceful.

PURPORT

The devotee of Lord Kṛṣṇa has no desire other than serving Kṛṣṇa. Even so-called liberated people are full of desires. Fruitive actors desire better living accommodations, and jñānīs want to be one with the Supreme. Yogīs desire material opulence, yogic perfections and magic. All of these nondevotees are lusty (kāmī). Because they desire something, they cannot have peace.

Buddhists are considered jnanis of a sort - ie they have a desire to merge their individuality into the formless nature of eternity - in other words its all about what "I" want - its like desiring to not be egotistical for egotistical reasons

 

[S.A.M.]

It is our instinct as members of a social species that is the root of morality. Solitary species have no reason to care about other individuals except in the very narrow context of reproduction. In a social species, the fortune of the individual is linked to the fortune of the pack, which is in turn linked to the fortune of all the other individuals. This is the basis for morality, and it is instinctive.

I disagree. The code of conduct, or morality, is defined by a social group. What is acceptable and what is not, is determined by a social group for the good of the community. Regardless of the opinion of individual members, the definition of acceptable or not acceptable behaviour is determined by either consensus, majority opinion or by selected members of the group. So what is considered ethically wrong by one group is perfectly acceptable to another group. e.g. tribal rites of passage would be considered gruesome in modern sciety but are essential to the establishment of adulthood in tribes. Changes in social dynamics redefine the concept of morality, as what may be beneficial in one set of circumstances may be detrimental in another. e.g. Morality as defined by a social group may include acts of war for self-defence, while killing for personal defence may still entail a prison sentence.

Morality is an abstract concept that preserves and is maintained by group dynamics. Hence it is not instinctive.

Besides if morality were instinctive, why the need for a legal system? Why the corruption in high places? Why the attacks on the weaker by the stronger?

 

[(Q)]

Besides if morality were instinctive, why the need for a legal system? Why the corruption in high places? Why the attacks on the weaker by the stronger?

The same could be asked about morality from religion. Or, maybe that IS the reason.

 

[superluminal]

I disagree. The code of conduct, or morality, is defined by a social group. What is acceptable and what is not, is determined by a social group for the good of the community. Regardless of the opinion of individual members, the definition of acceptable or not acceptable behaviour is determined by either consensus, majority opinion or by selected members of the group. So what is considered ethically wrong by one group is perfectly acceptable to another group. e.g. tribal rites of passage would be considered gruesome in modern sciety but are essential to the establishment of adulthood in tribes. Changes in social dynamics redefine the concept of morality, as what may be beneficial in one set of circumstances may be detrimental in another. e.g. Morality as defined by a social group may include acts of war for self-defence, while killing for personal defence may still entail a prison sentence.

Morality is an abstract concept that preserves and is maintained by group dynamics. Hence it is not instinctive.

Besides if morality were instinctive, why the need for a legal system? Why the corruption in high places? Why the attacks on the weaker by the stronger?

I disagree. The foundation for this "abstract" morality you speak of is an innate sense of right and wrong that we all posses. An instinctive morality. We're talking basic morality here. Not the arbitrary extended morality we apply to things like tribal rites of passage.

 

[Satyr]

Religious fanatics and men-children aside, I would say that moral behavior is instinctive.

Animals exhibit a form of morality in groups.
There is a rule of conduct and often an individual sacrifices self for the pack or the herd.

But with humans things often become more complicated.
It goes back to the meme/gene issue.

Where genes ingrain behaviors instinctively and establish patterns over prolonged environmental conditions human intervention has sped-up environmental change through memes.
This speeding up has resulted in a growing gap between instinct and intellect.

The mind is now often asked to adapt to environments it hasn’t had time to adapt to genetically.
I can be taught what is wrong or right, by my group, but my instincts have desire independently of what my mind has been taught.
This results in a psychological pressure, sometimes resulting in neurosis or other psychosomatic illness.
Obesity is a good example of what I’m talking about. The physical body has been conditioned to behave a certain way towards food. The environment it has been adapted to was one of scarcity, ingraining instinctive attraction towards certain high-energy foods.
Human intervention has altered the environment making these same foods abundant.
Genetically we cannot help but be attracted to these foods, as if they were still scarce even if this same instinctive behavior can kill us under these new environmental circumstances.
Obesity, heart disease and so on are all diseases. Dis-ease.
The human is not at ease in his new environment. He is genetically programmed to behave in an environment that has changed and his adaptation (reprogramming) is lagging behind.
The same can be said about many human phenomena such as: criminality, adultery, sexual deviance, etc.

For instance sexual behavior is instinctive but human intervention, through ideals, has established certain rules that go against these instinctive behaviors.
The Ten Commandments are such interventions which force a mental adaptation to an environment where a genetic one lags behind.

The adaptation is forced through indoctrination (education, religion, ethics, family) and enforced through institutions (church, state, school, family, law).
It is the domestication I talked about.

The tension between what the human mind finds natural to it and what it finds immoral or wrong, can be seen in cases where individuals cannot help themselves but ‘sin’ against communal rules, sometimes at the risk of their very lives.

The issue also relates us back to the notion of “overcoming”, as in surpassing man, or of becoming rational beings rather than instinctive animals.
Many consider themselves rational, or what they call ‘human, when they exhibit instinctive behavior and are controlled by emotion.

As the mind tries to control its instincts and adapt them to a new environment it battles against itself, creating the illusion of a duality physical/mental when it is simply a piece of the mind trying to establish dominion over another piece.
One NEED trying to become an arbitrator of all NEEDS.

In fact self-consciousness, a characteristic of larger-brained animals, is this fissure inside the mind.
A piece of the brain segregates itself and looks upon the rest, creating the delusion of spirit/physicality.
The frontal cortex, if you will, trying to control the reptilian part and the rest of it.

This relationship causes also the notion of God talking to us, as a separate being, or of consciousness versus the sub-conscious, when it is simply self talking to Self – intellect talking to instinct.
Here, also, in this self-segregating piece is where the idea of identity comes into fruition.