I am absolute morality itself.

[Jannes]

3 minutes ago, Vibes said:

But at a higher level God is the creator, so by you choosing to save people by killing hitler would be you interfering with life=selfishness anyway. Maybe at a lesser degree, but still.

Killing hitler or not killing hitler are both choices. Not choosing is a choice. 

Maybe Leo means that you are acting immoral either way. You could only act moral if you were god dreaming up not hurting anyone. If you dream to be a human there is nothing moral you can do but you can choose to make the most least immoral decisions possible. 

[Leo Gura]

16 minutes ago, Jannes said:

I dont think I get it.

My action in killing hitler would cause a lot less people to die so it would reduce the harm to others. 

I didn't say you have an obligation to reduce suffering for others. I said to reduce the suffering your selfishness causes others. That's an important difference. Otherwise you will feel obligated to hunt down every asshole in the world. Hunting down bad guys is a selfish-motivated activity.

[Davino]

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Even though morality is relative, higher consciousness and truth still has a pretty big impact on one's personal moral conduct in the world. And then that also has collective political ramifications.

It is so, when I'm in very high conscious state I'm not amoral but actually it's when I'm more integrated, holistic and empathic with everything.

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

How does Truth and Consciousness connect to relative morality? And it is all as purely relative as you think? If so, then how come Truth and Consciousness tends to compel people to improve their behavior?

I really like the question and the short answer is that I don't know. The long answer is that it might be because of my sense of self. I can't be a devil if what I'm taking advantage of, is what I feel as myself, this kind of short circuits morality. I feel myself in everything and therefore it naturally comes to love myself in everything and to also treat myself with due respect. I see that I'm only hurting myself so therefore I stop hammering my toe finger. But in a way, you get to make your own rules about how you treat yourself so relative morality still holds but given enough consciousness that also feels like it will be seen through in a way I don't quite get yet.

Edited May 29 by Davino

[gettoefl]

useful clarifications

moral is what we should do based on what we know is best for us, ethical is what i should do based on what i know is best for you

moral maximises gains for the societal benefit, ethical minimises pains for the spiritual benefit

morals are to survive, ethics are to thrive

[Razard86]

On 5/28/2024 at 7:16 AM, r0ckyreed said:

There are a lot of holes in your response here. Leo brought up great points to your argument. Anyone who thinks morality is simple is fooling themselves. Your moral principles are great for some aspects of the human domain, but they are disconnected from the nuances of the complex facets of reality. The idea that you are morally good is itself a trap of the Devil. 

You just made a statement without actually explaining anything. Actually explain where my points fall short or you literally have nothing. What you don't understand and I keep telling you is THERE IS NO OTHER. This means if you make an argument that cannot be disproved, that is the answer. So actually disprove what I said. Also you are full of limiting beliefs, saying morality isn't simple. The truth about life is everything  is simple! It has always been simple! Lies are the only complication!! That's it!!!

If you cannot change something as an individual, and with help from others, then the truth is you cannot change it, and excessive worrying about it is what is actually foolishness. So unless you actually point out where I am wrong....then it hasn't been corrected or improved.

Here is what I wrote. Respond to each point on where it is actually limited. Here they are, and I have updated them some more to make them even more simple.

1. Never give someone an experience that you wouldn't want to receive. 

2. Never give someone an experience that they wouldn't want to receive.

3. Lastly, do not think or speak or act out an experience you don't want to receive.

4. If you cannot change something as an individual, and with help from others, then the truth is YOU CANNOT CHANGE IT.

6. Help those in need voluntarily, within your scope of ability. Why? Because you would want help if you were in need. When you help someone, help them if you can to be more self-sufficient. If you give man a fish you feed him for a day, if you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime.

And when I say you, I mean you and whoever the recipient is, because you and the recipient are both YOU. YOU is all inclusive.

Edited May 30 by Razard86

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, Razard86 said:

Never give someone an experience that you wouldn't want to receive. 

2. Never give someone an experience that they wouldn't want to receive.

Not agree, If someone is bothering me, being an obstacle, I will do whatever is necessary to make them stop bothering me if I have the power to do so, including killing them if it were the best alternative. and I wouldn't like them to do anything like that to me. Social relationships are not an easy dance. Maybe you have children to feed and someone is stealing your food.

For me there is only one morality: be the truth, be the flow that is as clean as possible, remove all the falsehood you can.

[Will1125]

True

Edited May 29 by Will1125

[Razard86]

On 5/28/2024 at 8:41 AM, Davino said:

What you can control is different from what you "care" to control. Your answers showcase that. The initial axioms are pretty good but Leo really brought up some edge cases you haven't solved.

This is using ignorance as an excuse. Ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not")  is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of breaking the law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware.

So your answer clearly violates your own axioms 1 and 2 by this fallacy.

The point is that there are people who do care about driving killing bugs, a whole religion in fact, Jainism. Who uphold, ahimsa, or non violence, to the extreme. Jains even wear a face mask to prevent the accidental inhalation and killing of insects and usually clean the floor as they walk to avoid stepping any living creature.

I cannot post pictures but here you can see in the thumbnail how they live with their face masks and cleaning utensiles.

If you wanna learn about the most extreme morality practiced in the world study Jainism. You will see where the rabbit hole of morality leads to and how impractical and impossible it is to actually live by it. Which is to say that most people just live in morality fantasies with gaps as huge as mountains while totally unaware of the contradictions in their everday actions.

 

So I think the following point extrapolates to the rest of your answers which is: one thing is the law, another is what you can do to align with the law and lastly and most important is to what extent you care to do so.

 

For me a big axiom in morality is the eternal tension between the individual and the collective, I understood this concept thanks to Ken Wilber and I think it's foundational to any discussion about morality.

You are literally disingenuous. Every day when you walk you kill bugs. There has never been a human who has lived who has not killed a bug. You are a giant. Ants are crushed unknowingly by you all the time.

Also everyone being absolutely good is a fundamental understanding of Spirituality. All crime all pain and suffering inflicted is due to ignorance. So ignorance is an excuse, it is an ABSOLUTE EXCUSE. The only reason human civilization says the ignorance of the law is not an excuse is because they ASSUME criminals know better. Criminals DO NOT know better, from the criminal mind HE IS THE GOOD GUY. If you do not understand this one tenet that all devilry done by humans is do to ignorance, then YOU ARE IGNORANT. 

 

On 5/28/2024 at 10:31 AM, Leo Gura said:

But @Razard86's defintion is pretty close to mine.

Leo...if you have a better one provide one. You are not being truthful. You don't have a better one, but if you do post it in this thread. The key to morality again is control WHAT YOU CAN CONTROL, DO NOT blame yourself for what you cannot control. If you think you can change some things in your life to minimize harm do the best you can.

Life was designed to be TOO BIG for you as an individual to fix the world's problems, only God can fix the world's problems, a sole human cannot. Now we as a collective human species can work to fix problems, but to do that, each and every human collectively has to work on themselves to align themselves with the tenets I laid before.

Here are the new and improved tenets:

1. Never give someone an experience that you wouldn't want to receive. 

2. Never give someone an experience that they wouldn't want to receive.

3. Lastly, do not think or speak or act out an experience you don't want to receive.

4. If you cannot change something as an individual, and with help from others, then the truth is YOU CANNOT CHANGE IT.

6. Help those in need voluntarily, within your scope of ability. Why? Because you would want help if you were in need. When you help someone, help them if you can to be more self-sufficient. If you give man a fish you feed him for a day, if you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime.

Edited May 30 by Razard86

[Davino]

5 hours ago, Razard86 said:

Every day when you walk you kill bugs. There has never been a human who has lived who has not killed a bug. You are a giant. Ants are crushed unknowingly by you all the time.

Of course, that's what I was trying to point out. It is practically imposible to not give others an experience you wouldn't want or they wouldn't; as you claim morality is all about. You can strive to do it, as far as you care to do so. That's all. Where you draw the line is the whole point you overlooked and I was pointing how by the same axioms you derived, people draw the line in different places. Moreover, to actually always be aligned with this noble axioms is impossible as you have just said and then pointed some examples of people striving for such impossibility.

5 hours ago, Razard86 said:

All crime all pain and suffering inflicted is due to ignorance.

Of course not. Surviving as a finite thing inflicts pain to other finite things, that's how it is. Has nothing to do with ignorance

5 hours ago, Razard86 said:

Leo...if you have a better one provide one. You are not being truthful. You don't have a better one, but if you do post it in this thread.

Already did, in this thread:

On 28/5/2024 at 3:46 PM, Leo Gura said:

Which is why I framed my defintion of morality as such: All of morality boils down to reducing the harm your selfishness causes others.

- - -

Whatever, it seemed more that you wanted to be right rather than inquiring into Truth. I can sense it, the way you answered and presented things, it just doesn't put the focus on Truth but just wants to somehow point blindspots and then be right. I just care about Truth. Even if you are right you may not have the Truth.

[Fernanda]

@Razard86it's a nice way of framing morality, but do you think we know what we want? If we don't, would those statements be invalid?

For ex, I did not want to move to another city when I was a child, got mad at my parents, years later I realized how, in fact, I didnt know I wanted that.

[Jannes]

On 29.5.2024 at 1:49 AM, Leo Gura said:

I didn't say you have an obligation to reduce suffering for others. I said to reduce the suffering your selfishness causes others. That's an important difference. Otherwise you will feel obligated to hunt down every asshole in the world. Hunting down bad guys is a selfish-motivated activity.

I personally wouldn't like to kill hitler because it would get me into trouble but I would feel obligated to do. So that's an inner conflict still within the selfish ego in your eyes (cause I am just feeding my hero ego for example)?

Do you think your definition of morality is whole then or is it necessary to break out of it once in a while? My example with hitler seems like an example where your definition of morality falls short to deal with every situation. 

[Butters]

5 minutes ago, Jannes said:

I personally wouldn't like to kill hitler because it would get me into trouble but I would feel obligated to do. So that's an inner conflict still within the selfish ego in your eyes (cause I am just feeding my hero ego for example)?

Do you think your definition of morality is whole then or is it necessary to break out of it once in a while? My example with hitler seems like an example where your definition of morality falls short to deal with every situation. 

Why don't you tickle Hitler? Maybe it'll turn him around. 

[Jannes]

22 minutes ago, Butters said:

Why don't you tickle Hitler? Maybe it'll turn him around. 

I see.. If I had the aura of a Jesus Christ maybe that would work. 

[integral]

Without Hitler we would probably have World War III right now. Going back in time and killing him will setback all progress for hundreds of years.

Edited May 30 by integral

[Jannes]

5 minutes ago, integral said:

Without Hitler we would probably have World War III right now. Going back in time and killing him will setback all progress for hundreds of years.

Maybe. Maybe not. 

I think in the hitler example that may be the case that it would be bad to kill in as a time traveler BECAUSE nobody killed him back then which means not enough people were wise enough so they needed that experience to wisen up. (I mean the collective and not the individuals of course)

An analogous wrong approach to this would be fucking up your own life on purpose just so you can learn. If you fuck up your own life on purpose that means you knew better and there is no learning to gain. 

But if you know that there is an asshole which abuses people right now for example you live in a country with a bad dictator then it's good to fight against him imo. 

[Inliytened1]

I like both Leo's and @Razard86 ideas on morality.  Indeed they are very close.  I think all you can do is reduce..and as you said relativity is part of the equation.  It really makes it a matter of context.  Killing can be viewed as moral and also immoral depending on context.  It may be viewed as immoral to let a suffering horse live rather than to put it out of its misery.  There are other examples where killing could be viewed as moral or immoral.  As to the point of Truth and Consciousness I think this comes from within whether you can feel that your actions are more aligned with Truth or Consciousness or not.  At the same time if you sometimes behave immoral you shouldn't beat yourself up.  It's very difficult to be even partially selfless.  By the same token one shouldn't give up on reducing it either.  For example I find myself swatting flies that are "bugging" me..no pun intended.   Am I going to beat myself up for this? Probably not.  But when it comes to humans we change the rules.  It really shouldn't be like that but we also have to keep in mind that survival dictates some level of selfishness too.  Not to say I shouldn't let the fly buzz around me all day causing me great discomfort 😀

As for hunting down bad guys I think one could also perhaps pick their battles.  Essentially what we did do is hunt him down (that was the war)  but in doing so we saved civilization from fascist rule and preserved other race's survival which I think was fhe moral thing to do in that scenario.

@Water by the River i hope your peace pipes are free

 

Edited May 30 by Inliytened1

[Water by the River]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

@Water by the River i hope your peace pipes are free

 

Peace pipes?

Selling?

 

Just

Selling Water by the River

for the cost of the  illusion of the separate-self.

 

The rest is free, including the peace pipes. Not that the Apache and Comanche start doing the gig described by @Breakingthewall 

On 28.5.2024 at 10:17 AM, Breakingthewall said:

It depends, if you are an Apache the morality is: Kill all the Comanches, if possible by torturing them by having dogs devour their intestines or by dragging them among cacti. Then enslave their women and have many children with them. If one bothers you, exchange her for a horse or cut off her nose. 

Edited May 30 by Water by the River

[Leo Gura]

Now that I think of it, reduction of morality could itself be another reductionist trap.

You could formulate morality in a much high-caliber, more positive, more visionary way as: Being of highest service to Consciousness/Love. Instead of merely reducing harm to other, this formulation of morality means you take on a proactive role is being of service to the whole Universe, whatever that entails. Of course all this assumes you have a very clean and deep connection to Consciousness/God, not just some human spiritual act. It could only be done by the wokest and most developed humans.

So the problem with this formulation is that it's totally beyond the normal human. It would require Awakening and much more.

Edited May 30 by Leo Gura

[Water by the River]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Now that I think of it, reduction of morality could itself be another reductionist trap.

You could formulate morality is a much high-caliber, more positive, more visionary way as: Being of highest service to Consciousness/Love. Instead of merely reducing harm to other, this formulation of morality means you take on a proactive role is being of service to the whole Universe, whatever that entails. Of course all this assumes you have a very clean and deep connection to Consciousness/God, not just some human spiritual act. It could only be done by the wokest and most developed humans.

So the problem with this formulation is that it's totally beyond the normal human. It would require Awakening and much more.

Excellent!

Turqouise, Coral and Teal are knocking 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva

Wonderful peace of real estate to live ones life from...

 

“The intuition is given; the unpacking is our moral dilemma, always.” Ken Wilber

https://integrallife.com/basic-moral-intuition-the-greatest-depth-for-the-greatest-span-2/#:~:text=Wilber contends with his notion,about and care for span.

"Wilber contends with his notion of Basic Moral Intuition that we ought to protect and promote the greatest depth for the greatest span"

[Breakingthewall]

If you are absolutely honest with yourself, you always know exactly what you have to do. leave your girlfriend, host your friend in your house, commit harakiri under a flowering cherry tree, volunteer in Africa, unleash a nuclear apocalypse... it's always clear. Another thing is that you choose, let's say, more comfortable options. morality is doing what you have to do, and that's it.