theos-l

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

re: ethics and morality

Apr 16, 1996 09:44 AM
by alexis dolgorukii


>>>>>>>>>cut<<<<<<
I cut the string before it got all tangled up.

This is addressed to Greg Hoskins and Jerry Schueler:

I'd really like to comment on your dual postings re: Ethics and Morality.

First I'd like to point out that in every case I know of, both "morality"
(religion based) and Ethics (Socially based) are entirely culturally
specific. They are neither of them at all "Universals".

Second: If one behaves well, i.e. is either "moral" or "ethical" or both,
because one believes in Karma, then it is hardly either "selfless" or
"disregarding of results". It seems to me that one should "behave well"
because that is how one is, and it thusly requires no thought at all to do so.

I don't think that "intent" is as important as Greg does. The reason? Think
about Torquemada, Savanarola, and Hitler, I am certain each of those persons
felt their intent was perfectly virtuous, and yet each one of them is
responsible for untold harm. The old cliche about "hell is paved with good
intentions" is one of the most true truisms.

Now, as to Altruism, I submit that in order to be truly altruistic, it must
be an intrinsic factor in a person's character. It seems to me that being
altruistic by intention carries with it the strong implication that one is
"striving" for some goal, and then the goal, which would be "altruism"
becames part of a "goal oriented process" which is then hardly altruistic.
Being naturally good is one thing, trying to be good is another thing
altogether because it implies an awareness that the goal has yet to be reached.

Morality, I have always believed is far too religion biased in any and every
culture. Ethics on the other hand is the simplest of things, so simple that
its defintion has become the oldest of cliches. "Do as you would be done by".

A person should do good naturally without any thought at all because its
"how they are" the minute one does good in order to do good, then it stops
being antural. But so what? The result is identical. Therefore unlike Greg I
am not so interested in intention as I am in results.

alexis


[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application