Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00297)

At 04:45 PM 4/11/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Alexis:
>

>It really depends upon what you mean by the term "moral". If it brings
>to mind the narrow "do this" and "don't do that" rules that are given
>to us by modern religions, I can see your distaste for the term.
>
>I give the term a higher meaning, because I look at it apart from its
>abuse by religious zealots. I would consider "moral" to be doing what
>is right. As sentient beings, we learn to distinguish right from wrong,
>and to act with consciousness and deliberation rather than unconsciously
>and by habit. It the better sense, "moral" refers to those actions that
>are for the better good, and "immoral" are those that are harmful to
>everyone involved, even if the harm is not apparent on the surface.
>
>I'd agree that we throw off the arbitrary rules of conduct imposed
>upon us by society under the term "moral". But I don't see it as leading
>to being amoral. In my view, the throwing off of unconscious, rigid,
>unthinking morality is done by becoming self-consciously moral. That
>is, one sees with penetrating insight (buddhi) into the true nature of
>the situation in life before one, and chooses what is right with
>skillful means. The rigid rules given us by society no longer shackle
>us, but we're even more tightly bound to the right because we see,
>know, and cannot help but want to follow it.
>
>-- Eldon
>
>The thing as I see it Eldon is this: We, that is you and I, as individuals,
do not have the option to redefine "morality" to a "higher meaning" because
on this planet, and especially in the aprt of it in which you and I live,
"Morality" is always accompanied by a silent, but entirely understood and
unavoidable "Judeo-Christian". Morality in the ssociety in which we live is
Judeo-Christian Morality, and this fact is constantly underlined and
reinforced by speakers inCongress etc. And so, as we are almost unavoidably
"stuck" with this puritannical "morality" we are forced to judge it on it's
own terms, which is exactly what it demands that we do. On the other hand
"Ethics" deals with the way people ought to treat one another, the way
people ought to repect one another, viewed that way then "Judeo-Christian
Morality" is almost entirely unethical. Ethics is the methodology that makes
amicable human inter action possible, while "morality" becuase it is rigid,
and inflexible, and entirely inhumane, has precisley the opposite effect.

 "Morality" is, for the most part, an entirely "sin-based" conception. There
is no such thing as "sin" in human inter-relationships. "Sin" is something
Priests invent and claim is an "action that angers "God"", it's primary
purpose is to give Priests power and control over the lives of others.
"Ethics" on the other hand has no element of sin or religion attached to it
and is entirely based on what people have learned as to "how to get on
together". It is certainly clear to most people who have given the matter
any thought at all that people who consider themselves as "morally upright"
are not simply sumg, self-satisfied, and self-righteous,but for the most
part entirely unethical and basically nasty people. The kind of person who
considers himself "morally upright" is far too likely to be like Fra Ignacio
de Torquemada, or Savanarola. The "morally upright" lynch people!

To close, I think that my primary belief is that "morality" is entirely
irrelevant to human daily life, and even more than that, it is utterly
irrelevant to the life in spirit.

alexis dolgorukii, MTI, FTSA