TreyMoney

Let's start with a definition: Will: the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action. From the enlightened pov, from the absolute pov, there is no such thing as person or action. But no things exist in the absolute state. From the relative state of existence, person and action do exist, as does the will. Will is a subset of consciousness. A strong will has the ability to direct the attention of consciousness. A weak will does not have the ability to direct the attention of consciousness, resulting in consciousness simply responding to stimuli. Will is a faculty that must be exercised like memory or imagination. The will is only an illusion from the absolute state where nothing exists. But you don't live in the absolute state, no thing does. You live in the relative state where the will does exists and it is absolutely necessary for the healthy functioning of consciousness. The existence of the will is not a belief. The will can be perceived and experienced. Stop believing that the will is an illusion. That's just another belief, and a very dangerous unhealthy belief. And notice not once did I use the word free. Cheers to health, wealth, peace and love

Rape is immoral because it violates a persons volition. No person wants their volition violated. If a person wants their volition violated, that is volitional, and thus not a violation of their volition. Since no person wants their volition violated, any action that violates a person volition is an immoral action. Rape violates a persons volition. Therefore rape is immoral.

Rape exists, because sometimes human animals value sex/abuse over respecting the autonomy of the person that is object of their desire. Agree? Then the rapist can justify their actions in 1 of 3 ways 1. Might makes right, the strong have the right to rape others. If I am stronger than someone, I can rape them if I choose. If others are stronger then me, they can rape me if they choose. This is the amoral stance. It is a consistent stance. One set of rules for all. 2. It is ok for me to enforce my will upon others, but it is not ok for others to enforce their will upon me. This is the immoral stance. It is an inconsistent stance. One set of rules for my behavior, but different set of rules for behavior of others. 3. It is neither ok for me to enforce my will upon others, nor is it ok for others to enforce their will upon me. This is the moral stance. It is a consistent stance. One set of rules for all. 1 is animal. 2 is selfish. 3 is moral. It is not a 21st century opinion. The golden rule "Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated" has been around since the dawn of civilization.

Looking for thoughts/feedback on this. I see moral relativism as a problem for the peaceful evolution of society. People and cultures around the world disagree on the nature of morality, and if moral relativism is accepted as true, I think it will lead to more disagreements and more conflict around the world. I consider myself to be a moral absolutist. Moral absolutism is the ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong. Moral relativism is the ethical view that the morality is not absolute, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons. At the metaphysical level, morality, ethics, and rights are mental concepts / social constructs, because reality is a mental construct. At the physical/material level, morality and ethics have an internal logic. I view morality as being similar to mathematics. Math is a mental concept, but there is an internal logic upon which it is based. Mathematical principles/laws are absolute (a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid), they are not relative. Moral laws do not exist in the same way that the law of gravity exists. You cannot break the law of gravity. Instead moral laws exist in the same way that mathematical laws exist. You either correctly apply mathematical laws and arrive at the right/correct conclusion, or you incorrectly apply mathematical laws and arrive on the wrong/incorrect conclusion. Similarly, I view moral laws as absolute, not relative. There is a right/correct way to determine which actions are right/correct and thus how human beings should act. I view Right actions as actions that do not cause physical harm to another person(s) or property or actions in which all parties involved are consenting participants. I view Wrong actions as actions that do cause physical harm to another person(s) or property or actions in which not all parties involved are consenting participants. This is NAP Non-Aggression Principle + Voluntaryism 101. Help stop the spread of the dangerous virus that is Moral Relativism. Cheers to health, wealth, peace and love. TreyMoney

Thanks for your reply @Godhead I agree with you that rape is wrong relative to the value of personal autonomy over one's body. But, I argue that personal autonomy over one's body is a universal value, valued by all human beings. No human being wants their personal autonomy over their body violated. If they do want it, then it is volitional / voluntary and not a violation. Of course, a person can value their autonomy respected, and not value the autonomy of others, however I submit that this is the fundamental immoral value: wanting others to respect your personal autonomy, but not respecting the personal autonomy of others in return. The amoral position would be might makes might, strongest survive, war of all against all, law of the jungle, etc. The immoral position would be wanting others to respect your autonomy, but refusing to respect the autonomy of others in return. The moral position would be wanting others to respect your autonomy, and respecting the autonomy of others in return.

To those who believe morality is relative or contextual....please explain a situation where raping a human being is a morally permissible / morally good / morally right / morally correct action? If we cannot find such a situation, then rape is never morally permissible / morally good / morally right / morally correct and thus we have a moral absolute. Looking forward to your replies.

If you are new to spirituality or enlightenment, do not waste your time chasing the ultimate truth unless you absolutely have to, meaning you have a BURNING DESIRE that you cannot get rid of and you absolutely need to find the true nature of reality. If you pursue enlightenment what you will ultimately discover is that reality is pointlessness, senselessness, meaningless, devoid of meaning. This doesn't mean reality is bad, it just means it is without meaning. It is no thing. No thing cannot have meaning. Enlightenment will not solve any of your everyday problems and can actually make them worse. You are simultaneously living in two realities: the enlightened reality which is meaningless, and the experiential reality which means whatever you want it to mean for you. Pursue the latter and forget the former unless you absolutely cannot. Cheers to health, wealth, peace and love. TreyMoney

@trenton Believe in, and practice, the Non-Aggression Principle as that which is morally good. Promote the importance of voluntary interaction as that which is morally good. Denounce all forms of involuntary interaction as coercion and immoral.

Hey, I hope this thread is not coming off as a "non-dual war". I simply meant for it to be a warning for newcomers to enlightenment and to give the perspective of someone who feels they did things "out of order"....i.e. pursed enlightenment before pursuing self improvement / self actualization. Cheers to health, wealth, peace and love. TreyMoney

@vladorion Meant "Chasing enlightenment will not solve any of your everyday problems and can actually make them worse." Yes, life problems are total illusions from the enlightened state, but only no one exists in the enlightened state.

Anyone here fans of Mark Passio's work?

Thanks @Godhead @TreyMoney

@Godhead which of those have you read?

@Godhead do you know of any good books on spiral dynamics?

@BlackMaze hey maze, nice post. Breath is life. When breath ends, life ends. First step is to switch to nose breathing and stop mouth breathing. Some people may have trouble switching to nose only breathing but with conscious practice it can be done. Start by being still. Sit and nose breath only. Then breath nose only while moving. Nose breathing will naturally go to the optimal depth for your body. Then if you want to get into more advanced breath work yoga has a ton of different techniques.

@Godhead I'm beige ; )

Would NAP fit better under Green?

Yellow would be moral relativism then or moral nihilism?

Where would logical objective morality fit into the spiral? Orange you think? I'm very open to other opinions here.

Here is how I see morality within the spiral dynamics framework: Purple = morality of the tribe is true, all other moralities are false. Red = amorality, whatever we need to do to enrich ourselves by any means necessary is moral Blue = morality of the culture/religion is true, all other moralities are false. Orange = amorality, greed is good, whatever increases profits, productivity, wealth and living standards is moral. Green = moral relativism, my morality, my reality and my truth may differ from your morality, your reality and your truth, but no moral framework is objectively any better or worse than any other moral framework. Yellow = moral absolutism, there exists a universal, logically consistent, objective moral framework to judge the ethical value of human action. Turquoise = moral nihilism, there ultimately is no such thing as objective right or wrong.

@Godhead I'm interested in your moral system. How do you determine what is right and wrong behavior? Do you have a moral framework? Outline your belief system.

@Godhead I have a neat answer to your car questions but I won't waste your time since I know you will just reject it off hand. I would absolutely steal if I needed to in order to survive. That doesn't make it moral.

@trenton Thanks for the comment! You are absolutely correct from the enlightened point of view. What ever is, is right. There is no such thing as wrong or evil from the enlightened point of view. Existence, reality, the universe, is perfect just as it is. It cannot be other than it is, because there is no other. There is only it. I am it, you are it, this is it, and so is that, he is it, she is it, it is it, and that is that. From the non-enlightened state though, from the everyday world point of view, wouldn't a rational, object, universal morality based on peaceful, nonviolent interaction be beneficial to human survival and evolution? It does assume the base value of survival as you mentioned. Appreciate your input and perspective. Cheers to health, wealth, peace and love. TreyMoney

In that situation, it is not the electricity that causing you physically harm. It is your own beliefs causing you physical harm. In the music example, it is not the music that causes sleep deprivation, but my inability to find a non-violent solution to the non-violent problem....such as ear plugs or headphones, or sound proofing my home, or nicely asking my neighbor to turn the music down.

If they own the property on which the electrical line is built, and it is only near your property, then that is not violence against you. You can shield your property with space blankets a la Chuck in Better Call Saul. Or you can move. But your emotional harm is not physical harm, so you can't use physically force to defend yourself from nonphysical harm. That would be like murdering my neighbor for playing loud music. Their music may hurt me emotionally and psychologically, but it is not hurting me physically so I can't defend myself with physical force.