Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00645)

Alexis:
>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".
	Alexis, I agree with you.  However, we are in the minority
on this one.

>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.
	This is the point I have been trying to make for about 3 years now.

>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.
	Hitler's intent was to help the majority at the expense of the minority.
Perhaps a better way is to first consider "...if it harm none."

>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.
	Right.  This is the difference between the higher and lower stages
of Kohlberg's moral developmental stages.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI