Thoughts on Morals
Aug 21, 1994 08:26 PM
by Gerald Schueler
Jerry H-J is upset about the ethical
standards of the younger generation of
theosophists. Although I am in the older
generation (TS member for 25+ years), I
disagree. First of all, I have yet to hear
anyone advocate unethical behaviors. Jerry,
thanks for the quote, but rest easy, everyone
agrees that a theosophist should be ethical.
The disagreements only come into play when we
try to define ethics. Our forefathers (from
the Piscean Age) saw the world as black or
white. Everything was either good or bad.
Every person wore either a white hat or a
black hat. Ethics was defined in terms of
Thou Shalt Nots. Today we are entering the
Aquarian Age and people are now realizing
that the world has shades of grey in it. In
fact, there is precious little of purely
white or black in today's world and virtually
everyone now wears a grey hat. I see this as
an evolutionary improvement. So how do we
define ethics today? Perhaps the definition
given in the Sanatana-Dharma (An Advanced
Text-Book of Hindu Religion and Ethics,
published by Adyar) is still pertinent:
"...the measure used in Ethics at the present
stage of evolution, by which the rightness or
wrongness of an action is decided, is the
tendency of the action to promote or to
hinder Union." (p 265) Also on the same
page is "...the object of morality is to
bring about happiness by establishing
harmonious relations." While noone is likely
to argue with this definition, who wants to
set themselves up as a judge of whether
someone's particular action tends towards
Union or not? While I like the definition, I
feel that monitoring or measuring its
efficacy would be impossible. If by ethics
we mean establishing a code or set of
regulations, of Thou Shalt Nots, then I am
against ethics.
I wrote the following short article some
time ago. It was published by a European
magical group (can't recall the name) a few
years ago and I trust they won't mind my
reprinting it here.
MORALS AND MORAL DEVELOPMENT. The Path from
Amorality, to Morality and Immorality, and
Back Again.
Morals are terribly important for any
progress along the spiritual path. Theosophy
teaches that morals are absolute
requirements. H.P. Blavatsky goes so far as
to say, "The basis of morality and virtue are
weak so long as morality and the course of
virtue is not shown to be the necessary means
for soul development, spiritual immortality."
(C.W. Vol XIII, p 3576). Thus moral
development is essential for the immortality
of our souls. Lets take a quick look at
morals and how they are developed. I will
use two modern psychology texts as aids:
1. Philip Zimbardo, (1988), Psychology and
Life, 12th Edition, (Glenview IL: Scott,
Foresman and Co.). For simplicity, I will
call this reference PAL.
2. Grace J, Craig, (1989), Human
Development, 5th Edition, (Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall). For simplicity, I will
call this reference HD.
First, a brief definition:
"Morality is a system of beliefs,
values, and underlying judgments
about the rightness or wrongness of
acts." (PAL p 87)
Morality has to do with a sense of right
and wrong, and with what psychologists call
the conscience. Piaget, a famous cognitive
psychologist, defined morality as "an
individual's respect for the rules of social
order and his sense of justice," where
justice is "a concern for reciprocity and
equality among individuals." According to
Piaget, moral sense develops in two stages as
follows: (1) The moral realism stage is
where all rules are obeyed without
distinction. There is no weight given in
this first stage to intent. (2) The moral
relativism stage is where rules are created
and agreed to cooperatively by individuals.
In this second stage, rules can change -
there is no absolute right or wrong.
The entire concept of moral development
must concern itself with child development
and how morality is acquired during the
developing stages of life.
"There is considerable debate as to
how children acquire morality.
Social learning theorists believe
that children learn it by being
rewarded or punished for various
kinds of behavior and by modeling.
Psychodynamic psychologists believe
it develops as a defense against
anxiety over the loss of love and
approval. Cognitive theorists
believe that, like intellectual
development, morality develops in
progressive, age-related stages."
(HD p 352)
There are three main schools of thought
concerning moral development in modern
psychology: social learning, psychodynamic,
and cognitive. Social learning theorists are
concerned with behaviors and suggest that
moral development is primarily a matter of
reward and punishment. Children model the
behavior of adults, and learn morals through
rewards and punishments, a well-documented
process called operant conditioning.
Psychodynamic theorists are concerned
with emotions and suggest that moral
development comes about by unconsciously
avoiding the disapproval of others. Freud
was a psychodynamic theorist:
"Freud argued that most people
behave morally most of the time
because of the inhibiting effects
of their consciences or the guilt
they feel when they do something
wrong." (PAL p 87)
Cognitive theorists are concerned with
thinking and they suggest that moral
development has definable stages that
everyone goes through to some degree.
Lawrence Kohlberg presented six stages of
moral development which, although criticized
by some, is accepted today as a useful model.
"According to Kohlberg's original
formulation, people can fit into
one of the six stages or moral
development. Since then, he has
theorized that an even higher moral
stage (stage 7) exists, although it
is rarely found." (PAL p 88)
Because of its importance, lets briefly look
at Kohlberg's Model of Moral Development:
LEVEL 1.
Stage 1. Punishment and obedience. Rules
are obeyed to avoid punishment.
Stage 2. Naive instrumental hedonism. Rules
are obeyed to obtain rewards and to have
favors returned.
LEVEL 2.
Stage 3. "Good-boy" morality of maintaining
good relations and the approval of others.
Rules are obeyed to avoid disapproval or
dislike by others.
Stage 4. Authority-maintaining morality.
Rules are obeyed to avoid censure by
legitimate authorities and to avoid guilt.
LEVEL 3.
Stage 5. Morality of contract, of individual
rights, and of democratically accepted law.
Rules are obeyed for social or community
welfare.
Stage 6. Morality of individual principles
of consciousness. Rules are obeyed in order
to abide by universal ethical principles.
Kohlberg has been criticized by other
psychologists including women for various
reasons (Kohlberg's study subjects, for
example, were males), and Kohlberg himself
has reviewed his findings and has
acknowledged the importance of some of his
critics' arguments. But his six stages still
remain as an important psychological model
for moral development. One of his critics is
Carol Gilligan:
"Gilligan argues that there are
essentially two methods of moral
reasoning. One is based on
concepts of justice and the other
on caring for others. These
methods can be sexually
differentiated. The justice
perspective is characteristics of
male thinking, while caring for
others is common to women's moral
reasoning. Men focus on rights and
think in highly individualistic
terms, according to Gilligan.
Women, by contrast, see moral
issues in terms of human
relationships and concerns for the
need of both sides in a moral
dilemma. However, Gilligan notes,
some women make moral judgments
from a justice perspective and some
men from a caring one. It results
from the socialization process. As
a consequence of their
predispositions, however, men tend
to base their judgments on abstract
moral principles and women
generally on human needs in
concrete situations ... Gilligan
argues that Kohlberg's stages
theory needs to include the female
perspective along with the male's."
(HD p 354-355)
With the above discussion in mind, it
would appear that the doctrine of karma, of
universe justice, was first taught by a man.
Virtually all psychologists agree that
babies are amoral - neither moral nor
immoral. They cannot understand people's
responsibilities to each other. Various
stages of moral development are entered as we
grow. But it is well known that children are
egocentric - they see the whole world as
wrapped around themselves and are unable to
view life from another's perspective. The
egocentric character of the child matures in
early middle childhood. This allows the
child to see another's point of view and to
develop friendships.
We can summarize moral development
according to modern psychology as being
somewhat indecisive, although Kohlberg's six
stages are widely accepted as a general
model. Basically, morals are the result of
our developing from an initial state of
amorality to obtaining a conscience - a sense
of right and wrong. How this development
occurs is debatable, but it is generally
accepted that morals have to do with
acquiring a sense of right and wrong.
Virtually all psychologists agree also that
morality is culture-dependent, and what is
right in one culture may be wrong in another
culture. Right and wrong are relative,
rather than absolute, terms.
Now lets look at a more occult or
esoteric view of morality. One of the best
descriptions of morality from the viewpoint
of Adepthood or the spiritual path, was given
by W.Y. Evans-Wentz in the excellent
introduction to his classic 'The Tibetan Book
of the Great Liberation' (London: Oxford
University Press). In his introduction to
the life of the great Tibetan magician and
saint, Milarepa, Evans-Wentz says that evil
"is that which impedes self-realization."
This is a very enlightened Buddhist
viewpoint, and has important ramifications in
other areas. The idea is that anything which
impedes spiritual progress is evil or wrong,
while anything which hastens or assists
spiritual progress is good. He writes,
"Good and Evil are the two-forked
trunk of the Tree of Life, sprung
from a single Seed. Each fork
alike has its support in the root-
system of the One Tree. The same
flows to and nourishes both forks
equally. Or Good and Evil may be
viewed as being like twins,
offspring of one Father-Mother."
(p 55)
And again,
"Good and Evil, when viewed
exoterically, are a duality,
neither member of which is
conceivable or capable of mentally
existing independently of the
other. Being thus inseparable,
Good and Evil, when viewed
esoterically, are intrinsically a
unity."
(p 56)
Here Evans-Wentz (who, I believe, was a
theosophist) presents us with an extremely
difficult concept to grasp - the dual nature
of good and evil, right and wrong. We all
want to hold tightly to the good and somehow
cast out the evil - embody only goodness, and
avoid evil. This desire comes to us at a
very early stage in our lives, when we are
praised for being good and punished for being
bad. It is reinforced through our lives by
repetition. Whether this is done by our
parents, our care-givers, or whoever, we all
try, most of the time, to be good and not to
be bad (albeit for different motivations).
We try to hold onto one side of a duality,
and throw away the other side. As we well
know, this never really happens. Our
struggle is never successful. Life is
neither black nor white - it is various
shades of grey.
An Adept or enlightened person, who
finally grasps the meaning of the duality of
good and evil, reverts to the childlike state
of amorality. As far as morality is
concerned, such a person becomes as a child
again. Most people, including theosophists,
have a hard time accepting this - they would
prefer to think that the Adept is all
goodness and light having thoroughly
conquered evil. The truth is difficult to
come to grips with - evil cannot ever be
conquered or cast out. Wrongness is as
permanent, in this world, as rightness.
Morality, in the sense of right and
wrong, is entirely an exoteric concept. The
esoteric teachings of morality is a "bitter
pill" for many to swallow in some ways,
because although true, it is a terribly easy
concept to take advantage of, and to abuse.
Therefore, it is a very dangerous concept to
try and teach. I realize this, even as I
write these words, but I still feel strongly
that they must be said (as I am sure, Evens-
Wentz did also). First of all, only by
understanding that the spiritual pathway is
one of a reversion to amorality, rather than
from immorality to morality, can we hope to
understand the outlandish actions of some
historical figures such as Madame Blavatsky
herself. Evens-Wentz presented the esoteric
view to lay the background for understanding
the immoral-appearing actions of the Great
Guru, Padma Sambhava. Because most people
either cannot understand the esoteric
concept, or refuse to accept it, such
historical figures are usually cast as rogues
and/or charlatans.
We should not behave in such a way as to
gain personal awards. Many people go to
church every week, not because they enjoy it
or feel benefitted by it, but rather because
they hope such actions will assist to get
them into heaven, or because they desire the
approval of friends and neighbors.
Theosophists, by and large, would discourage
such an attitude. One should attend church
to help others in the community, or because
one simply wants to learn, rather than for
personal gain or social status. But to act
in this way, to be good simply because being
good is the right thing to do, requires a
separation from one's past as well as a new
self-image.
We learn right and wrong at a very early
age, and society encourages its development.
We cannot do good simply because such actions
are expressive of our spiritual natures,
unless we first develop an enlightened self-
image and then cut ourselves off from the
moral sense that society has instilled into
us. We must see ourselves as being
spiritual, and then dissociate ourselves from
the moralistic schemas that are imprinted in
the way that we look at ourselves and at our
world. Such a task is not easy - it is the
task of an Adept, and when accomplished, the
Adept will act without any sense of right or
wrong, without any desire for reward, in
short, without karma. To do this, the Adept
overcomes, in a sense, his social sense of
right and wrong - and thus transcends the
society in which he or she was born and
raised. The Adept becomes universal.
Society, in turn, sees at least some of the
Adept's actions as antisocial, and thus
dangerous. The true Adept is often a danger
to society, or at least some significant part
of it. The Sermon on the Mount, for example,
could be viewed as a call to Hippies and
malcontents, and after all, Jesus was killed
solely because his teachings presented a
danger to his society.
Jerry S.
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
