I am absolute morality itself.

[Davino]

50 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

commit harakiri under a flowering cherry tree

The only worthy way to end your human life

Edited May 30 by Davino

[Leo Gura]

Wrestle a crocodile under a flowering cherry tree.

[Breakingthewall]

36 minutes ago, Davino said:

The only worthy way to end your human life

A good one without doubt. 

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Wrestle a crocodile under a flowering cherry tree.

If I'm honest with myself, I know that I have to do it.

[Davino]

@Breakingthewall I imagine you dying in the middle of an oceanic storm grabbing a shark by the neck

[Breakingthewall]

6 minutes ago, Davino said:

@Breakingthewall I imagine you dying in the middle of an oceanic storm grabbing a shark by the neck

🤣 I have ever thought that if the time comes, the way should be to tie an anchor to your waist and jump into the water at 4000 m depth, much better than an overdose of Diazepam, surely the gods will reward the gesture. would there be balls? who knows

[eye_wanderer]

After much suffering, I had the insight for myself that morality (which I would prefer to call ethics) can never be formulated as simple rules, since there will always be exceptions. Instead I like to conceptualize morality as a process: the process of balancing between the various principles at play. The highest process might be attempting/desiring to do the will of the One.

A more accessible process I've developed for myself combines Love (heart) and Truth (honesty). The characteristic of honesty, in my opinion, is being open to considering all perspectives without bias (not censoring or devaluing any particular perspective). The process involves, first, grounding the self in the open heart (where an accessible form of unconditional love flows in an authentic manner);  second, not resisting the in-flowing ideas of the mind (such as arguments that might favor one action or the other); finally, using the intuition/resonance of the heart to continually update our guess about what action is the most balanced in promoting the interests of Love.

 

[Fernanda]

3 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

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. 

Yes, we always know.

[Inliytened1]

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

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.

They were hand in hand from fhe start.    Where do you think reducing comes from.  But this is a nice way of tying it all together verbally. 

Edited May 31 by Inliytened1

[Razard86]

On 5/30/2024 at 5:46 AM, Fernanda said:

@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.

You can only know what you want by doing a deep inquiry into what drives you. Self-Knowledge is the only knowledge that will teach you the truth of who you are as a self. As such you need to take time to deeply inquire with yourself on what you like, what you don't like, and what you are passionate about.

[Razard86]

Not a single person in this entire thread has brought up a single reasonable objection to what I posted. Until one comes, I have just posted the greatest Moral Code Ever. The truth is what is, and until you can discover a reasonable objection that truth of this moral code is absolute.

[Razard86]

On 5/28/2024 at 10:35 AM, jimwell said:

Generally good. But reality is complex. Some people want what you don't want, and vice versa. You think nobody wants to be punched in the face? Ask the masochists. Nobody wants his wife to be fucked by other men? You'll be surprised by the number of cuckolds out there.

 

There are times when you can't know what others might not want.

Reality is not as complex as you think. What you don't understand is all humans have limits. A Mascochist has a threshold of pain they cannot tolerate. Sure he might like getting punched in the face, until he blacks out, loses all his teeth, and get brain damage. Now guess what? He regrets getting punched in the face!!!

So what you need to do is stop creating arguments in your head that are not true. Anybody that experiences enough pain, will learn the lesson that pain teaches all which is....pain makes cowards of everybody and I do mean everybody. There is not a single living thing that can defeat pain indefinitely, pain ALWAYS WINS.

[UnbornTao]

22 hours ago, Razard86 said:

Not a single person in this entire thread has brought up a single reasonable objection to what I posted. Until one comes, I have just posted the greatest Moral Code Ever. The truth is what is, and until you can discover a reasonable objection that truth of this moral code is absolute.

You changed "want" to "want to receive" after I mentioned that self-generated suffering serves a purpose for us, implying that we (unconsciously) want it.

And morality is relative and humanly constructed, no matter how useful or intelligent, so "absolute" is a misnomer and "universal" or "broadly applicable" might be more accurate terms. 

Edited June 4 by UnbornTao

[Keryo Koffa]

On 5/30/2024 at 5:12 AM, Razard86 said:

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

I might hate sports events but still invite a buddy to a football match because he's really into it and I want to make him happy and show some appreciation to his interests, even if I don't share them, same with other relationships and activities . There might also be some exceptions with neurotic individuals loving others when they cannot love themselves and learning self-compassion in the process. There's also punching someone in self defense of course or stealing food when starving, though one can easily empathize with others doing the same at a little cost of one's suffering if in their shoe. Maintaining law and sentencing others is an act of responsibility but actually aligns with this rule well and proves it, as much as a surgeon operating on someone being uncomfortable being operated on oneself if necessary but certainly also wanting their life saved. The starting examples are just a small sliver of exceptions though and the rule is extremely helpful and highly meaningful 99% of the time, so take this as "the exception proves the rule". This is really just contemplation, not critique and I like this Golden Rule a lot. What I do wanna criticize is just below.

On 5/30/2024 at 5:12 AM, Razard86 said:

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

What about self defense, constructive feedback, making them aware if they're hurting others, any communication that tries to make them aware of shortsightedness or self-destructive tendencies, being honest about one's feelings when a relationship isn't working out, staying by their side when they're depressed, get angry and are pushing you away, balanced parenting that teaches children about negative experiences to prevent greater suffering later, fulfilling the role of a teacher or mentor that pushes them out of their comfort zone, having a tough conversation about dangerous life decisions, anything that is painful or difficult for the ego in the moment but leads to more freedom and appreciation later, setting boundaries even if it's uncomfortable for the other party or one's children and teaching them about the consequences of their actions, the police upholding the law, the court of justice punishing crimes, playing sports and winning while the other one loses, doing effective therapy, or simply expressing varying opinions

On 5/30/2024 at 5:12 AM, Razard86 said:

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

I feel like I'm strawmanning with this one but the wording seems unfortunate to me, I'd replace "think and speak" for "advocate for and encourage", else it leads to the following: I guess we're just gonna give up on art and creativity then, exploring all sides of humanity including the darker ones and figuring out good, evil, morality, drama and meaningful conflicts. We're not going to empathize with people of varying opinions and have an open discourse, Education about the past will be quite stifled and a billion other things

On 5/30/2024 at 5:12 AM, Razard86 said:

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

That sounds circular, if it includes self and others, then what is this statement in opposition of? Is it just saying not to stress oneself to death over the impossible, surrender to the truth and be at peace? What about the future? 

On 5/30/2024 at 5:12 AM, Razard86 said:

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.

This is healthy life advice, though if it's absolute morality then that contradicts the voluntarity, if it is a guide then it makes perfect sense. Personally, I wholeheartedly agree, there's just the danger of drawing barriers and turning it into compulsion but that applies to everything and you did say voluntarily and gave good reasons.

[An young being]

Wonderful discussion

[creativepursuit]

On 28/05/2024 at 3:46 PM, Leo Gura said:

Yes, but the moral questions are all about where you draw your lines.

I'm sure that as they are bombing Gaza the Israeli leadership are telling themselves: "The only way not to harm anyone is to be dead."

But then you look at that as an outsider and are horrified at the net result.

It's easy to find ways to create all sorts of blind externalities.

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

Sometimes, pursuing God can cause emotional harm to a lot of close family members. Please,  how can I reduce that? @Leo Gura 

[An young being]

Only God knows which action to point out as a completely moral or immoral action.

Let's imagine I am doing what everybody would consider as an extremely moral thing even advised by spiritual gurus : Planting a tree. Yes, it's no doubt a very good things to do, but imagine a coconut falls from a tree you had planted after a few years, falls on a weak man and kills him. Now, is your action right or wrong? The answer is, it doesn't matter.

What matters is your intention and your level of consciousness while intending it. A highly conscious person will be able to see through the results of the consequences and can make the better choices. He will be the least biased and makes a rational decision for the overall welfare of the world. He makes sure his actions cause the least suffering overall for the world. He won't expect anything in return or take pleasure for his actions, and hence remains unaffected even if the action results in unintended consequences.

A low conscious person will be ignorant and hence his action also remains selfish and immoral. He will be suffering the consequences for his actions as well in the name of karma.

[Rafael Thundercat]

On 28/05/2024 at 2:46 PM, Leo Gura said:

All of morality boils down to reducing the harm your selfishness causes others.

A good place to find examples of this is in Nature. In symbiotic relationships in nature between plants and insects and many other dynamics. Nature are presenting us with solutions for our predicaments everyday.

[Keryo Koffa]

@An young being Indeed, what is important is the state of mind that materializes that action.

We might fall into discussions of utility vs principle vs responsibility vs foresight vs caution vs god's intent vs purpose vs the understanding of what is even desirable in the first place and balance short term vs long term gratification realizing that part of existence is taking risks else physical reality wouldn't wouldn't exist in the first place and then spice it up with a bunch of religion and spirituality and the nature of individuality vs compassion vs symbiosis vs play vs  meaning vs buddhism and cessation of all desire vs appreciation of desire and the cycle of life and a quadrillion other lenses to create an ever changing dynamic balance.

So all that's left is to grow, learn, develop, become in tune with oneself the world and one's intuition that always keeps evolving

[An young being]

On 28/05/2024 at 3:17 PM, Razard86 said:

Ultimately all lives are equal, but here is a secret you don't realize, God shows favor

All lives may be equal, but may not be equally designed. For example, the nervous system of a bug is far simpler than a human being and hence the ability to feel pain. A tree doesn't feel pain at all. 

Look at God's design, he designed tiny and essential things ( like a plant) less capable of pain, so that the emotional selfless guys don't have to feel pain everytime they kill a bug accidentally.

On 28/05/2024 at 7:44 PM, Princess Arabia said:

When nature hits, it ain't thinking about morality. Earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornados wipes out entire cities at times killing anything in it's path. Humans are the only species worried about morality

It's all an illusion.

[An young being]

On 29/05/2024 at 5:06 AM, Vibes said:

I always thought about killing vs not killing as a mean for doing good. For example, if you see an ant agonizing on the ground, would it be better to finish it or let it agonize to death?

It doesn't matter. What matters is, do you want the ant to suffer less or more? With your mental capacity, have you tried your best to figure out the best solution?