Moral Reservations About Enlightenment

[Jamie Universe]

What does something need to be objective?

Well depending on your definition, and from what I gather here, people use objective as:

 

- What's actually there

- unbiased/unprejudiced

 

and (I think) your argument is, is that

1) some forms are better than others (at least for what makes a "human well")

2) Morality is objective because humans naturally get well from things that cannot change, and naturally suffer from other things, and enlightenment 'talk' is 'bad' because it contradicts the fact that many people have suffered over objective things like death.

 

So lets talk about this 'objective' thing. If you agree with my definition, then morality being objective means that there are things that will always regardless of anything make someone well/unwell. I'm not going to delve into the other arguments, because I don't have enough time to respond. But that means if something makes someone 'well' and makes another person 'unwell' it can't be objective, because it depends on the persons state. Because yes you could argue that getting your arm chopped off is objectively bad, yet to enlightened people it doesn't seem to matter. Seeing animals suffer makes me unwell, infact I sometimes care less about humans than I do about animals, and yet it will not make as unwell for your own reasons.

Maybe you can elaborate on your argument. This whole post is full of a crap ton of replies... 

 

 

But on another note. If your looking for what to believe based of philosophical reasons/regular reasons. then know that seeing all forms as "Everything is fine just the way it is, and the only TRUE problem lies in your perspective of whatever is" could be a solution for all to be well.

if you get mad at the 'enlightened' people for thinking that the 'obvious pain' right in front of them is fine, then consider this. If nothing truly existed, and that was the truth. Would pain even matter? (Fyi - Not enlightened, and that statement could be totally wrong)

I mean... pain is based upon the reason that it exists. But if you saw that it didn't exist, would it even matter? Why spend time worrying over something that doesn't exists?

 

And yes you see pain happening right in front of you. But how do you know the pain is actually the thing that is making them unhappy? I used to be unwell a lot from looks, but I changed my belief and now I'm more well. In this case belief was what was the source of making me unhappy, and yes there was pain and it made me unhappy. But pain wasn't the problem.

You blame the 'enlightened' thinkers for saying that "everything is fine just the way it is" And you say this because you see that things obviously cause people pain. And yet the pain-causers are not to blame (<--- I can elaborate on this if you want me to).

So do you blame the pain? I think the statement says that objectively all there is, are a bunch of 'stuff' doing shit. And when you see the pain happening around you. The pain is happening yes, but is not a matter 'objective form' instead is caused by people and their own beliefs/experiences.

(I don't think) being enlightened means your not empathetic, and maybe you misinterpreted the statement as a belief instead of as advice. 

 

 

(P.S. for anyone to lazy to read my post, I basically I said: How morality isn't objective, would you care if pain didn't exist? Pain is not necessarily to blame, enlightened people can be empathetic)

 

 

[Jamie Universe]

And I could be wrong!

[Will Bigger]

@StrangerWatch you can’t go beyond self-interest even as an enlightened person. To truly go beyond self-interest requires a level of development which is way, way (way) beyond just nonduality perception. 

Dont worry about it, and realize that seeking enlightenment is the most constructive thing you can do with your self interest.

[Faceless]

?

[StrangerWatch]

6 hours ago, Jamie Universe said:

Well depending on your definition, and from what I gather here, people use objective as:

 

- What's actually there

- unbiased/unprejudiced

Correct so far.

6 hours ago, Jamie Universe said:

and (I think) your argument is, is that

1) some forms are better than others (at least for what makes a "human well")

2) Morality is objective because humans naturally get well from things that cannot change, and naturally suffer from other things, and enlightenment 'talk' is 'bad' because it contradicts the fact that many people have suffered over objective things like death.

Mostly right. Insofar as an experience in the universe can be better or worse: Person X having a good time is objectively having a better time than Person Y having a miserable time – that's where the objectivity comes in. Whether Person X is feeling good or not is not a matter of opinion, because whatever Person X feels is what he/she objectively feels.

Now, if we grant that good experiences are objectively better than bad experiences in the context of consciousness (and there is no other relevant context), and that morality relates to the quality of these experiences, then we have an objective basis. Just as we grant that a healthy body is better than a dead one in the context of biology (and there is no other relevant context), and health relates to these qualities, health therefore becomes objective.

A person who thinks being dead is healthy is no more wrong about health than a person who thinks eternal suffering is good is about morality.

6 hours ago, Jamie Universe said:

So lets talk about this 'objective' thing. If you agree with my definition, then morality being objective means that there are things that will always regardless of anything make someone well/unwell. I'm not going to delve into the other arguments, because I don't have enough time to respond. But that means if something makes someone 'well' and makes another person 'unwell' it can't be objective, because it depends on the persons state. Because yes you could argue that getting your arm chopped off is objectively bad, yet to enlightened people it doesn't seem to matter.

The causes of bad or good experiences are not what makes the experiences objective; the experiences themselves are objective. Just as I explained above.

If a person suffers immensely over his/her lost arm, that person is objectively suffering. On the other hand, if an enlightened person loses his/her arm and doesn't suffer, that person is objectively NOT suffering. If we grant the assumption that good experiences are preferable over bad experiences in the context of consciousness (which I see no reason not to; even enlightened people generally chose to become so because they sought freedom and well-being), then the balance of pleasure and suffering becomes something that actually matters. Not an illusion or something we're stupid to fret over.

6 hours ago, Jamie Universe said:

Seeing animals suffer makes me unwell, infact I sometimes care less about humans than I do about animals, and yet it will not make as unwell for your own reasons.

That's an irrational view. Humans have more capacity to suffer than most animals, so if your concern is about well-being then you should shift your priorities.

6 hours ago, Jamie Universe said:

This whole post is full of a crap ton of replies... 

I wouldn't go that far, LOL! This thread has given me tons of great arguments. Even if I'm not convinced, these are some of the best counter-arguments I've heard. Thank you, to all of you.

6 hours ago, Jamie Universe said:

If your looking for what to believe based of philosophical reasons/regular reasons. then know that seeing all forms as "Everything is fine just the way it is, and the only TRUE problem lies in your perspective of whatever is" could be a solution for all to be well.

If I was a total solipsistic egomaniac, then that would definitely be the solution. However, I acknowledge that there are experiences all over the world (and probably all over the universe) which are objectively bad and no amount of paradigm shift can erase that.

Just think about it: Many say enlightenment is the end of suffering because of a shift in perspective on said suffering. But wouldn't they still admit that the suffering they experienced BEFORE they could view it in this manner felt objectively bad? If they can, then they can't really write off everyone else's suffering as a complete non-issue.

6 hours ago, Jamie Universe said:

if you get mad at the 'enlightened' people for thinking that the 'obvious pain' right in front of them is fine, then consider this. If nothing truly existed, and that was the truth. Would pain even matter? (Fyi - Not enlightened, and that statement could be totally wrong)

I wish I could say nothing truly existed, but then I wouldn't be here saying it to you :-P

Something clearly exists, and if you are unenlightened then that something DOES matter. "Nothing exists" is a metaphor enlightened people use because they are speechless about their experience. There are no words to describe the (admittedly short and few) enlightenment experiences I've had, and I am EXTREMELY careful about describing them to other people because I know the kind of anxiety that can bring them.

More importantly though, it's a danger to society for humans to think that life has no consequence. And this is important, because in most cases you can't meditate and do enlightenment work without society providing for your basic needs. Insofar as enlightened folks care about what happens to society, they want a society where more people are enlightened. If that is their goal (or the closest thing they have to one), then the dynamics of morality and well-being are definitely in their interest.

6 hours ago, Jamie Universe said:

And yes you see pain happening right in front of you. But how do you know the pain is actually the thing that is making them unhappy? I used to be unwell a lot from looks, but I changed my belief and now I'm more well. In this case belief was what was the source of making me unhappy, and yes there was pain and it made me unhappy. But pain wasn't the problem.

Suffering is a product of the mind, like everything else. And it can be erased through enlightenment work.

Don't think for a second that means it doesn't exist, or that people who are suffering 100 times more than you ever did are a non-issue.

6 hours ago, Jamie Universe said:

So do you blame the pain? I think the statement says that objectively all there is, are a bunch of 'stuff' doing shit. And when you see the pain happening around you. The pain is happening yes, but is not a matter 'objective form' instead is caused by people and their own beliefs/experiences.

You're almost implying that pain is people's own fault. Say that to poor people in Africa, South Korea, etc.: "You're causing your own suffering; it's all in your mind." That may be true, but it still doesn't mean the suffering isn't a problem.

If you were suffering immensely everyday, wouldn't you want to become enlightened to avoid that suffering? I rest my case.

Edited February 2, 2018 by StrangerWatch

[Leo Gura]

On 2/1/2018 at 6:22 AM, StrangerWatch said:

morality relates to the well-being of conscious creatures

That's way too generous an assessment.

What you mean there by "conscious creatures" is only those creatures who fit your agenda. As soon as a conscious creature behaves in a way that impinges on your survival agenda, you will call him evil and exterminate him. In truth, you don't really care about conscious creatures. You care about your moral worldview and your self-image.

Evil, by definition, is that which harms your ego.

Good, by definition, is that which soothes your ego.

The rest is window-dressing to make your morality feel objective and "for the good of all". Because of course the chief lie is that what's good for you is good for all. When in fact that can never be the case.

The hidden purpose of morality is to mask your own egotism by veiling it in nobility. So that you never have to face your own evil head-on, which would be very emotionally challenging.

Have you noticed that the most "moral" people are the ones who are willing to admit of their own evils the least? That's not an accident. That's the purpose of morality.

[MarkusSweden]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That's way too generous as assessment.

What you mean there by "conscious creatures" is only those creatures who fit your agenda. As soon as a conscious creature behaves in a way that impinges on your survival agenda, you will call him evil and exterminate him.

Evil, by definition, is that which harms your ego.

Good, by definition, is that which soothes your ego.

The rest is window-dressing to make your morality feel objective and "for the good of all". Because of course the chief lie is that what's good for you is good for all. When in fact that can never be the case.

The hidden purpose of morality is mask your own egotism by veiling it in nobility. So that you never have to face your own evil head-on, which would be very emotionally challenging.

Rings very true to me, tnx. 

But what about extreme tings like torture, rape, murderer and such. Isn't that evil objectively speaking after all? 

Edited February 2, 2018 by MarkusSweden

[Leo Gura]

24 minutes ago, MarkusSweden said:

Rings very true to me, tnx. 

But what about extreme tings like torture, rape, murderer and such. Isn't that evil objectively speaking after all? 

Not at all. That's totally subjective. You just have to step outside yourself a bit to see it.

Obviously the person doing the torture, rape, murder, etc. doesn't think it's evil. So already, you see it's subjective.

Nazi's can't be objectively evil simply because Nazi's don't agree that they are evil. So already it's your word against theirs. He said, she said.

For something to be objective, it would have to be true from every being's perspective.

If murder was objectively evil, all of life would grind to a halt. You cannot be alive without murdering other beings. But you don't like hearing this, so you hide it underneath the veil of morality and self-biased double-standards.

See, as much as you may think you like objectivity, in fact, you hate it. Ego cannot like objectivity because objectively-speaking the survival of all egos is irrelevant. And the ego cannot accept that because its sole purpose is to survive as itself. So objectivity and ego is like oil and vinegar. But of course the ego cannot admit this, so it lies about it, saying, "No! I'm being really objective!" when in fact ego is pure subjectivity.

The devil must call himself an angel, otherwise he would realize he is a devil and then he would have to stop, thereby ceasing to be a devil. So morality is literally a tool of the devil against God. See how sneaky the mind is?

God has no morality. It loves everything equally. But this level of infinite love is too radical for the devil. He literally cannot handle it. God's love would kill any devil who dared to look upon it. So all devils lurk in the shadows, away from the light, doing their evil deeds under the cover of darkness. Unconsciousness is the roosting-place of the devil.

Here is the #1 key to being a devil: not knowing you are one.

[lens]

Quote

 Humans have more capacity to suffer than most animals

@StrangerWatch Here comes that scale oh shit wadup. Have you actually been in an animals body to tell if that's true?  Do you think some little waves in a computer equate to pain? how could you ever be 100% sure that its level of pain are not different from ours? How could we ever be sure that its wave equate to anything meaningful? Everyone Suffers differently, that's why it is subjective, what makes me suffer won't make you suffer and vice-versa, how much of it we can take it is also subjective and we can't control it how much, and it's going to vary for everyone, waves are at best an estimate of what is supposed to be there, not a bullseye . And yeah, they don't suffer like we do, we just like to, in order of least to worst,:

 

.Domesticate Them For The Sake Of Our Amusement, Separting Themselves From Their Families Whom They Will Never See Again

.Throw Them Out Of Their Habitat Because Of Our Advance/ Amusement

.Pollute Their Habitat With Our Trash Because We Just Got To Have OUR AMUSEMENT

.Kill Them When WE Are Hungry

.Kill Them When There Are Too Many (7 Billion people)

.Kill Them When It Annoys US

.Boil Them Alive/Chop Them To Bits For US To Eat Slightly Better

.Rip Their Balls Off So that WE Don't Have To Get Annoyed

.Peform Crazy Experiments For The Sake Of OUR SURVIVAL

and the worse without a doubt

.Record Them And Upload Cute Videos To Youtube

is that not enough suffering to you? Again you are still thinking of this "You", you are not actually thinking of any one else, you're afraid of being the other one who is going to bite that dust, you can't deny what is, you need to understand it, not to cherry pick it and determine what's "good" and what is not

 

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by lens

[Monkey-man]

so much dualities

moral is egoic or moral is non-egoic, these are the same things because if everything is you then the world is just one ego, if everything isn't you then world is many egos. both ways these are egos or selfs

and no-self or yes-self, two same things!

U think Buddha would think that ur world is dual, my world is non-dual, u are ego and i am not ego?

why then he didn't answer on whether there is god or no? 

coz it was the same thing for him, god exist or god doesn't exist. same to the extent there's no difference between same and not same.

for him everyone's world is nondual coz theres no more difference between nonduality and duality, truth and untruth, someone's living in dual world and someone's living in nondual world. Someone's being selfless and someone's being selfish. Same things.

Jesus did extremely selfless act but he was 'rewarded' for that in the end

So is it selfless or selfish to do that? I'd say there's no difference. Difference is only in relative levels. What u call selfish is being identified with smaller things, what u call selfless is identified with bigger things to the extent when identification equals to no identification at all. no-self = true-self remember

U pursue truth only because u want reward in form of knowing whats' true

U breath because ur body wants to be rewarded with living

this whole game of rewards is just mechanism or stream of existence.

Even to escape samsara and attain moksha is about reward of not living here again. LOL

but irony is that u only can attain full moksha if u cease identification with any kind of karmic stream or actions at all

once u attained that u can say: LETS EAT as Buddha did. coz theres no more difference, then u might want to escape samsara because u see that there's no more difference between existing and not existing. getting rewards and go on with karma, or not getting rewards and cease to be.

So if we talk in levels.

Then u see that enlightenment goes hand in hand with morals AND 'good', they do not contradict each other

coz u speak about morality of rules, ethics and laws which is dualism of  me vs world

these staff is about interpersonal relationships. and these rules are essential to live with other people so they won't kill each other

but problem is that these days ppl use these rules to create goodie goodie self-image thinking that this can be good thing. very much useless and relatively 'egoic thing' as far as I noticed

but truer morality and fairness comes hand to hand with non-duality of me = world

why do you think jesus said the famous golden rule: do to others what you want for yourself ?

because thats non-dual perception, if everything is me then why do I want to hurt somebody if there's no reason for that other than my thought stories?

then you can only hurt someone if u really got physically attacked, thats self-protection what all martial arts advocates to do, no one teaches u to use your powers at all, but everyone teaches to protect urself from immediate attacks. martial arts btw are very linked with spirituality

its also good for the attacker. coz he will learn couple things about morality lol

but if u are safe then why would you do that non-sense at all? u don't do it if don't follow your self-image in thoughts.

so if u r not attached to your thoughts then you would only do some 'immoral' things only because of your immediate instincts 

and well instincts can also go out of hand sometimes because in your non-dual world there's no difference between lie and no-lie for instance

same things because both are thoughts, however now you have less reasons to lie because there's no more attachment to your stories of past and future, so u no longer need to save ur past and future self-image

BUT there's always now, so you might have reason to lie in the now to save your life in the now

lets say someone is attacking u and u lie to them to save ur ass, thats your body talking

and if we dig dipper in non-dual we can reach final frontiers where existence is equal to non-existence. physical pain to no-pain. now u don't need even to use ur instincts coz u transcended them. now here those who want to live will do all sorts of things to keep their body attached to life as sadhguru says. 

now comes another quote of jesus: Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either

why? because instincts do not work anymore. nothing is different at all. thats when morality becomes extremely 'selfless' because now u can try to kill me on the cross and i won't reject idea! why not if my heart tells that its alright? if heart tells its alright then thats what I do coz i trust thats good and alright. but if heart tells me to stop and don't die on cross, then I don't do it and that will be alright too. by heart I mean following  and being in tune with flow in its totallity

U see these saints were saints because they followed heart on their micro-level. Because in complete non-duality you not doing anything, everything is decided spontaneously. (Jesus: don't think about tomorrow as tomorrow will care for itself)

its hard to force being moralistic on urself, but its easy to surrender and flow

but for macro-level u need rules and ethics and ideas about perfect morals because society has to be constructed in some way, otherwise its no different from jungles, and most of us will be dead in jungles quite quickly

or the Boddhisatvas? they could escape samsara but choose to comeback to save everyone else. BECAUSE thats not decided by their mind, its just decided upon them. Its complete flow.

but for all our relative lives the only difference is: do u want to act morally to uplift your self-image (thats in dualism) or do u want to act morally because thats what ur heart tells u (thats in non-dualism)?

since its hard to listen to heart, I guess its already great if u can do conscious choice and separate good seed from bad seed because what goes around comes around

[Nahm]

Awareness of the suffering of animals comes with more consciousness that I suffer. Awareness the suffering is not real comes with more consciousness that my own suffering was not real. Awareness the animals, and everything else, is a complete fabrication and illusion, of your own, and therefore letting all things just be as they are, comes with more consciousness, that there is no self. 

[Jamie Universe]

15 hours ago, StrangerWatch said:

That's an irrational view. Humans have more capacity to suffer than most animals, so if your concern is about well-being then you should shift your priorities.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/do-animals-feel-pain-in-the-same-way-as-humans-do-10371800.html

Animals for sure feel physical pain, and though it seems debatable the capacity by which they suffer. Also I don't limit my care just because they don't feel as bad. Also I'm not trying to convert you to loving all animals.. I mean the animals suffer, but its just a choice I've adopted because I want to be more empathetic. I'm still plenty in-empathetic, I don't donate to charity, etc. 

 

15 hours ago, StrangerWatch said:

Just think about it: Many say enlightenment is the end of suffering because of a shift in perspective on said suffering. But wouldn't they still admit that the suffering they experienced BEFORE they could view it in this manner felt objectively bad? If they can, then they can't really write off everyone else's suffering as a complete non-issue.

Yes, people can admit that there was something that caused them pain (at least from what we can agree in a philosophical argument). And who says they write off everybody else's pain as a non-issue? 

If you interview each and every enlightened person, you may find some may think its not an issue, and you may find that some think it is a issue. Point is, you don't know. Because already from that one statement "Everything is fine just the way it is, and the only TRUE problem lies in your perspective of whatever is" we have multiple interpretations. And if you've interviewed every enlightened/spiritual person in the world with this argument, then your proving a good point. 

Yes there is pain, the pain is something. But there's always a choice. just because the statement is objectively true, doesn't mean morality principles don't count for anything. 

15 hours ago, StrangerWatch said:

if we grant that good experiences are objectively better than bad experiences in the context of consciousness (and there is no other relevant context), and that morality relates to the quality of these experiences, then we have an objective basis

Ok morality, how would you define morality?

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Yes, there is relationship between personal principles and well being, but you say that Morality is apart of this objective basis. Yes morality determines emotion, but morality in itself can be changed. So morality as itself is not objective, at least not the principles.

And in your first post you said that "some forms are better than others" whereas we have already disagreed on which forms are better and which are worse. I think some are better, you think some are better.

 

as far as philosophical debate goes, pain exists, but principles are constructions that we can change, and they change for our own reasons.

15 hours ago, StrangerWatch said:

More importantly though, it's a danger to society for humans to think that life has no consequence. And this is important, because in most cases you can't meditate and do enlightenment work without society providing for your basic needs. Insofar as enlightened folks care about what happens to society, they want a society where more people are enlightened. If that is their goal (or the closest thing they have to one), then the dynamics of morality and well-being are definitely in their interest.

I don't know where your getting this idea that the spiritual people think that life has no consequences, I mean sure people who have had enlightenment awakenings in the past have thought that, but Leo at least has debunked that. As for the best interest of those who are enlightened depends, because this is a game.. and yes the game says some forms are better than others, and yes if your playing chess, your going to want to have your queen and win. But the message is "Why do you want to win so bad in the first place? Why do you want that form to mean so much to you?" So yea sure, in a way it does make logical sense to not cut off your arm, and not like rape. I mean it causes people suffering. You play chess, one person wins, one person loses. someone's going to be unhappy. 

So take it as advice instead, take the statement "Everything is fine just the way it is, and the only TRUE problem lies in your perspective of whatever is" as an instructional guide for what to feel when your arm gets cut off, because the alternative "some forms are better than others" will make your life a living hell the next time you get raped.

And don't take that statement as a belief that spiritual people have, also don't take "Everything is fine just the way it is" as a reason enlightened/spiritual people have to not care when people die. Pain as itself is a undesirable emotional feature, but "Everything is fine" can be seen as a View towards life not necessarily a reality. And I mean who knows... Maybe pain itself is just a raw emotional experience, and the only thing that makes it 'bad' is interpretation/self-deception, but I don't know that for sure. But if you start to consider that winning chest is just some random form, then when you lose you'll be fine. If you start to consider that people being abused is just atoms moving around, then you'll be happier, that doesn't mean your not allowed to have that interpretation and use pepper spray when someone's being mugged.

I don't deny there is pain, but I do deny that the 'forms' are innately bound to cause pain.   

 

All philosophy aside from a second. Look at what you can do:

Choose 'better forms vs. worse forms' and...

- care when people get hurt

- get emotionally damaged to whatever extent

- can take action based upon morality principles

 

Choose "everything is just fine"

- Care when people get hurt (care - principle saying you should do something)

- feel how you want to 

- can take action based upon morality principles

15 hours ago, StrangerWatch said:

Suffering is a product of the mind, like everything else. And it can be erased through enlightenment work.

Don't think for a second that means it doesn't exist, or that people who are suffering 100 times more than you ever did are a non-issue.

Ok, I didn't know the "nothing exists" thing was a metaphor, but I also never believed it was non-existent

Also I don't think its a non-issue, I'm still empathetic as long as I'm playing this game, stop assuming

15 hours ago, StrangerWatch said:

You're almost implying that pain is people's own fault. Say that to poor people in Africa, South Korea, etc.: "You're causing your own suffering; it's all in your mind." That may be true, but it still doesn't mean the suffering isn't a problem.

If you were suffering immensely everyday, wouldn't you want to become enlightened to avoid that suffering? I rest my case.

You're almost implying that I don't care about other peoples suffering, realistically though I can't help every single one of them. Your almost implying that I think its their own fault, I obviously don't expect a poor kid in Africa to suddenly realize that they're pain is their own interpretation. And I don't blame them for not realizing it, it could simply be a choice someone might follow.

[StrangerWatch]

On 2/3/2018 at 2:55 AM, Jamie Universe said:

Animals for sure feel physical pain, and though it seems debatable the capacity by which they suffer. Also I don't limit my care just because they don't feel as bad. Also I'm not trying to convert you to loving all animals.. I mean the animals suffer, but its just a choice I've adopted because I want to be more empathetic. I'm still plenty in-empathetic, I don't donate to charity, etc. 

 

You misunderstood my statement. Other animals do suffer, and it's important to consider their suffering as well. But they are not as important as humans, because our data suggests that humans are capable of more suffering than other animals are (with some possible exceptions, like whales and other ape species). Now, this might be wrong, but it's better to act upon what seems true rather than not acting at all.

On 2/3/2018 at 2:55 AM, Jamie Universe said:

And who says they write off everybody else's pain as a non-issue?

For starters, @Leo Gura (I single him out because he runs this forum and people often look to him for advice). If you ask him, he'll say that nothing exists/matters and that all pain is an illusion. Meaning there is no difference between "heaven" and "hell" in his view.

Let me clue you in on my view: If there is a God who's responsible for all of this, that being should be destroyed along with its creation. This is not a reflection of my own life and suffering (I quite enjoy my life), but a calculation I have deduced based on all the suffering that has occurred throughout the millennia for other beings, and which is occurring right now in other places. Couple this with the very plausible multiverse hypothesis, and this suffering increases ad infinitum. If every being in existence was enlightened, this wouldn't matter. But alas, they are not.

On 2/3/2018 at 2:55 AM, Jamie Universe said:

morality in itself can be changed. So morality as itself is not objective, at least not the principles.

People's morals can change, but they often change based on the same principles. Say I suddenly become a vegan out of sympathy for other organisms' suffering. This would be according to principles which I had previously held ("suffering is bad"). Most people operate like this. We start off with "suffering is bad" for ourselves, and in most instances we realize that if suffering is bad for ourselves then logically it's the same for other beings.

This explains the Nazis, for example: They believed that what they were doing would be in their personal interest (they'd avoid personal suffering by doing their state's bidding), but many of them also believed that in the long-term they would create a society with less suffering. They were led to believe that minorities such as the Jews, the gays, the disabled, etc. were contributing to the suffering of the world. So you see, "suffering is bad" is almost ALWAYS the basis for morality, and since this is an objective statement and suffering itself is empirical, this means that it is possible for someone to be wrong about morality.

If "suffering is bad" isn't the basis of someone's morality, is that really true morality? Say someone believes "getting obese is healthy" or "being dead is the healthiest thing in the world". Would they really be as right about health as the doctor who tries to warn them that eating at McDonald's everyday will kill them?

On 2/3/2018 at 2:55 AM, Jamie Universe said:

And in your first post you said that "some forms are better than others" whereas we have already disagreed on which forms are better and which are worse. I think some are better, you think some are better.

Of course. Just because I believe that moral truth exists, doesn't mean I know what that truth entails. Notice that we both argue about morality under the same assumption: That suffering is bad.

On 2/3/2018 at 2:55 AM, Jamie Universe said:

I don't know where your getting this idea that the spiritual people think that life has no consequences, I mean sure people who have had enlightenment awakenings in the past have thought that, but Leo at least has debunked that.

Has he? From how I have understood his statements, he views life as a game: There may be winners and losers, but none of it ACTUALLY matters. You can still play the game to fill up your time, but know that the consequences are superficial. There's no TRUE reason to prevent suffering.

If this is the majority view of the enlightened man, I am very happy to live in a society he doesn't run.

On 2/3/2018 at 2:55 AM, Jamie Universe said:

So take it as advice instead, take the statement "Everything is fine just the way it is, and the only TRUE problem lies in your perspective of whatever is" as an instructional guide for what to feel when your arm gets cut off, because the alternative "some forms are better than others" will make your life a living hell the next time you get raped.

Let me put it this way: If every rape victim could be enlightened before getting raped, that would be awesome. But since most rape victims are not enlightened, the suffering they experience during and after such a heinous act is very real.

On 2/3/2018 at 2:55 AM, Jamie Universe said:

"Everything is fine" can be seen as a View towards life not necessarily a reality.

Self-deception, in other words. Sorry, but I care very much about honesty and truth, and erasing double-think.

On 2/3/2018 at 2:55 AM, Jamie Universe said:

I don't deny there is pain, but I do deny that the 'forms' are innately bound to cause pain.   

 

I also deny that the forms are innately bound to cause pain. That was never my point. I do believe enlightenment is the end of suffering, but that doesn't mean pain and suffering are inconsequential.

On 2/3/2018 at 2:55 AM, Jamie Universe said:

You're almost implying that I don't care about other peoples suffering, realistically though I can't help every single one of them. Your almost implying that I think its their own fault, I obviously don't expect a poor kid in Africa to suddenly realize that they're pain is their own interpretation. And I don't blame them for not realizing it, it could simply be a choice someone might follow.

I rest my case.

[Jamie Universe]

First of all, what of this? 

On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 5:55 PM, Jamie Universe said:

All philosophy aside from a second. Look at what you can do:

Choose 'better forms vs. worse forms' and...

- care when people get hurt

- get emotionally damaged to whatever extent

- can take action based upon morality principles

 

Choose "everything is just fine"

- Care when people get hurt (care - principle saying you should do something)

- feel how you want to 

- can take action based upon morality principles

 

 

1 hour ago, StrangerWatch said:

Has he? From how I have understood his statements, he views life as a game: There may be winners and losers, but none of it ACTUALLY matters. You can still play the game to fill up your time, but know that the consequences are superficial. There's no TRUE reason to prevent suffering.

If this is the majority view of the enlightened man, I am very happy to live in a society he doesn't run.

That's another assumption you just made, "You can still play the game to fill up your time" "the consequences are superficial" You probably haven't watched his Zen-devil video, where he talks just about what your worried, you've largely misunderstood him from what I've gathered (Which is fine as long as you realize his message.) Your worried that he'll not care about anything and that 'all consequences are superficial'

1 hour ago, StrangerWatch said:

People's morals can change, but they often change based on the same principles. Say I suddenly become a vegan out of sympathy for other organisms' suffering. This would be according to principles which I had previously held ("suffering is bad"). Most people operate like this. We start off with "suffering is bad" for ourselves, and in most instances we realize that if suffering is bad for ourselves then logically it's the same for other beings.

This explains the Nazis, for example: They believed that what they were doing would be in their personal interest (they'd avoid personal suffering by doing their state's bidding), but many of them also believed that in the long-term they would create a society with less suffering. They were led to believe that minorities such as the Jews, the gays, the disabled, etc. were contributing to the suffering of the world. So you see, "suffering is bad" is almost ALWAYS the basis for morality, and since this is an objective statement and suffering itself is empirical, this means that it is possible for someone to be wrong about morality.

If "suffering is bad" isn't the basis of someone's morality, is that really true morality? Say someone believes "getting obese is healthy" or "being dead is the healthiest thing in the world". Would they really be as right about health as the doctor who tries to warn them that eating at McDonald's everyday will kill them?

You've got a good point. But that doesn't mean morality isn't objective, literally if everyone in the world functioned off these principles it would not be objective. The moment something can change, it is not objective. And if you can imagine someone not functioning off the principle "suffering is bad" then it isn't objective. 

 

But I feel the only reason you want to see morality as objective, is because there is suffering and you want it to stop. And you also worry that if everyone in society was enlightened, we would somehow all just kill ourselves and each other, because why not? Which honestly could and has happened (watch Leo's Zen-devil video) but Leo does not advocate for just going around a raping everyone. 

 

2 hours ago, StrangerWatch said:

For starters, @Leo Gura (I single him out because he runs this forum and people often look to him for advice). If you ask him, he'll say that nothing exists/matters and that all pain is an illusion. Meaning there is no difference between "heaven" and "hell" in his view.

Let me clue you in on my view: If there is a God who's responsible for all of this, that being should be destroyed along with its creation. This is not a reflection of my own life and suffering (I quite enjoy my life), but a calculation I have deduced based on all the suffering that has occurred throughout the millennia for other beings, and which is occurring right now in other places. Couple this with the very plausible multiverse hypothesis, and this suffering increases ad infinitum. If every being in existence was enlightened, this wouldn't matter. But alas, they are not.

Your making a lot of assumptions. 

1) Leo thinks that everyone should just stop caring about all forms of morality, and that if Leo cared enough to run society, it would all go to ruin. 

2) the 'no difference' between 'heaven' and 'hell' is a form of propaganda Leo uses to advocate his world views, and advocate the 'no consequences' worldview. Instead of just what's in pure reality. 

 

You think Leo is like: A parent going up to a bunch of children and saying "Hey kids, sorry to break it to you, but this game isn't real, so it doesn't matter who wins or loses, or if you play by the rules"

 

In reality Leo is more like: The kid playing the game, knowing its fakes, and thinks the parent is a complete cu** for saying that shit

 

2 hours ago, StrangerWatch said:

Of course. Just because I believe that moral truth exists, doesn't mean I know what that truth entails. Notice that we both argue about morality under the same assumption: That suffering is bad.

You believe there is one type of form that's objective meaning: One form that - Can't change, is true for everyone and everything always regardless of anything. And for all I know there could. But if your advocating for the forms currently: e.g. - humans are more important than animals, then THAT principle is not objective, maybe the 'source' principle that existed, is largely common amongst people. 

"better forms vs. worse forms" 

3 hours ago, StrangerWatch said:

If this is the majority view of the enlightened man, I am very happy to live in a society he doesn't run.

Its not dammit!

lol

1 hour ago, StrangerWatch said:

You misunderstood my statement. Other animals do suffer, and it's important to consider their suffering as well. But they are not as important as humans, because our data suggests that humans are capable of more suffering than other animals are (with some possible exceptions, like whales and other ape species). Now, this might be wrong, but it's better to act upon what seems true rather than not acting at all.

You misunderstood my statement, the words "Is more important" are totally subjective. Here's an example of what I mean: If you have a hobo and a trillionaire, who will care more about the 100 dollars laying there on the street? (value is different for all) Hobo will care more about hundred dollars than trillionaire. 

So in our case its more like: If you have 2 people (one who cares more for animals / one who cares less for animals) Who's going to freak out more when all the dolphins die off?

If you want to understand the truth, its important you know why people call things "important" Its because they like "better forms vs. worse forms" and these selections of 'better forms' obviously change.

 

And sure go ahead, argue all you want why I should care more about humans more than other species. I could make even more arguments, I could argue that sure humans have a higher capacity to suffer, but do they suffer more currently? We have McDonalds, Burger king, and this huge giant industry which lives off the suffering of animals, and throughout all of human history we have eaten them ALOT more than they have eaten us. I could also argue it doesn't matter to me how much an animal can suffer, if its less then humans, because they're still feeling it. I could argue a whole bunch of philosophical bull crap. call me irrational, not being 'strategic to the best of my human capacity'

But it doesn't matter, because its just a choice I made. There's no sheer amount of philosophical evidence that will 'make me have to' change my opinions, maybe if I find out in the future, that animals don't have any emotions/feelings and don't suffer, maybe I will change my opinions.