Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00652)

>>>>>>>>>>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.

Would there not be a time before a person becomes naturally selfless where
intention is the way to get there? I have always understood that all the
various religions and philosophies were an attempt by different avenues to
teach some sort of ethics in the hope of creating brotherhood among self
seeking humanity. There is still a large portion of humanity that believe in
I'm ok Jack and that is all that matters.
>
>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.

Maybe some of them are sitting in a hot place wondering what went wrong with
their intentions. Some of those may have surcomed to their power positions
and lost sight of their intentions. Getting power does funny things to
people as I am sure we have all witnessed.
>
>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.

Being naturally good is, of course, the ultimate but spiritually good seems
more selfless perhaps. I assume that threading the 'path' is having
intentions to become a better person and thereby arrive at a place outside
of all these methods, intentions and whatevers used to get there. I agree
that it has to come from the heart naturally or else doing good run into
trouble.
>
>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.

As I understand it, the result is influenced by the intention, if there is
one, and so the forces put into being that is called the result may not
generate other 'good' forces from it if there is no selfless component to
the original cause of that result.
Oh dear, that is a convoluted sentence. Never mind I am sure you know what I
mean.
>
>alexis
>
>
>
Bee Brown
Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch.
Theos Int & L