Flaws in the Moral Video

[Thanatos13]

I find the video on moralizing to be flawed.

On the one hand he doesn't really address things like theft or murder, though one of the comments brought it up he mentioned something on the lines of a should statement. 

Second if you get rid of the should and should nots of life I feel like that would cause paralysis. After all, if there are no shoulds or oughts then there isn't really a reason to listen to teachers or to treat others well or to really do much of anything. Happened to me one time and I almost starved to death because I didn't see a reason I ought to live (again getting rid of such things). 

Right and wrong aren't really all to morality, but it's more like values. But even getting to "authentic desires" is still a should because it's saying one should be authentic or follow such desires. 

Of course there is also the argument that if everyone did what they wanted then no one would be able to. We only enjoy such conversations and (relative) peace through morals. Morality is pretty much what holds me back from killing as well as other things. 

[Leo Gura]

@Thanatos13 What you are talking about it manipulating your own mind with lies to enhance your survival agenda.

That is what most people do.

The only problem with it is, it's fundamentally based on falsehood, which requires that you enter a cycle of self-denial which then creates lots of suffering and stifles your ability to be a conscious and loving human being.

To be truly moral, you must surrender morality.

Is it threatening to your way of life? Of course, which is why almost nobody does it. Takes massive courage and lots of inner work. But it is worth it.

The counter-intuitive solution is to surrender your way of life.

[Thanatos13]

No, that's not what I am getting at at all. 

It's fine if you don't know since you really didn't address much in the video. You also don't say anything in your reply, contrary to most that isn't "crazy wisdom" it's dodging the question.

"surrendering morality" is being ammoral, so no you would not be moral. You also contradict the "Should" aspect of the video by advising against murder.  

You haven't surrendered morality if you are talking about love (which does not exist) and suffering.

[Leo Gura]

@Thanatos13 That IS what you were talking about, you're just in denial about it.

Which is what I was pointing out to you.

But you keep clinging to morality as truth without being open to other possibilities. So they conversation is useless. You hold morality as an unquestionable dogma. That is the issue here.

Love is a facet of Absolute Being. It's not a moral issue but an existential one. You're conflating love and morality.

[Thanatos13]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Thanatos13 That is what you are talking about, you're just in denial about it.

Which is what I was pointing out to you.

But you keep clinging to morality as truth without being open to other possibilities. So they conversation is useless.

It actually isn't but you are making it out to be to seem like you answered the question, when you have not. 

I say that without should or ought to then you would not really do anything since you would not value one thing or another. Even you do so, though you might not see it. 

I am not saying morality is truth since it amounts to little more than "because I say so". That being said, getting rid of should or ought means one would not do anything. Morality is a bit more than right and wrong, it's also about values (which aren't really right).

But if all you do is give vague "answers" to questions then it makes me wonder why people see truth in what you say. It seems to me that it just appears like wisdom if you don't question it. 

The reality  is the we act according to a system of values, and that is morality. That is when the should and ought come in. We live because it is a value, even though at the base the is no real reason why we ought to. The same goes for truth, love, etc. TO discard "morality" would be to discard values, which would result in paralysis. Similar to the arguments against Pyrrho. 

Or I can summarize it as you have not answered the question, you merely assume your position correct without backing it up. 

 

Edited September 2, 2018 by Thanatos13

[Thanatos13]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

 

@Thanatos13 That IS what you were talking about, you're just in denial about it.

Which is what I was pointing out to you.

But you keep clinging to morality as truth without being open to other possibilities. So they conversation is useless. You hold morality as an unquestionable dogma. That is the issue here.

Love is a facet of Absolute Being. It's not a moral issue but an existential one. You're conflating love and morality.

Love and morality might as well be since love is a value. However love is "two-ness" as I have heard. There is no love in oneness. Love is merely a construct of the human mind, it does not exist outside it. More to the point it is a chemical in the brain. But the short answer is that love is not "absolute being" this is a mistake. But it keeps finding it's way into such matters since people don't want to discard it. 

Love is part of the dream, and it seems like you are still dreaming.

[Capital]

I get what you are saying but can you tell me who EXACTLY construct morality ? Is it god or is it the government or everyone construct his own morality ? Is morality subjective or universal ? Does morality has a biological and social agenda or not ? 

[Thanatos13]

Ask someone who knows because I sure don’t. From what I know it’s part biology, part social, and maybe something else. The mistake peolle make is thinking mental construct=not real. That’s just not true. It’s also foolish to try to be objective since we are by default not objective beings and never will be. It’s like some idea that we reach for yet cannot be sure if we have. 

The irony is that reaching for objectivity is itself not objective. It’s a trick we play on ourselves to give them illusion of clarity. The best we can hope for is an approximation of reality. Personally it would be dishonest to assume more than that.

[Capital]

20 minutes ago, Thanatos13 said:

Ask someone who knows because I sure don’t. From what I know it’s part biology, part social, and maybe something else. The mistake peolle make is thinking mental construct=not real. That’s just not true. It’s also foolish to try to be objective since we are by default not objective beings and never will be. It’s like some idea that we reach for yet cannot be sure if we have. 

The irony is that reaching for objectivity is itself not objective. It’s a trick we play on ourselves to give them illusion of clarity. The best we can hope for is an approximation of reality. Personally it would be dishonest to assume more than that.

 humans have the capacity to think objectively not considering thier own survival and reproduction agenda into the thinking process and it's pretty simple thing to do , It's called system thinking , so you don't have to transcend your subjective perspective and be an enlightened Buddha to think in an objective system thinking way and realise that morality is a mental construct that is constructed to only benefits one's agenda.

 

Edited September 2, 2018 by Capital

[Shadowraix]

Saying love is just a chemical reaction seems to be a very materialist paradigm statement.

The chemical reaction is just a tool for this manifestation of consciousness. Its an abstraction up for what things really are which is mind. And guess who that mind is? You. This whole mental creation is you. You created it. One of the core problems of morality is we often take on morality as if it can't be questioned. I'm still going through his rant on morality but as he stated in that morality doesn't derive from your social programming which is unconscious behavior. It derives from being conscious and acting through that. You must question morality and all values. Get to the root of your justification for every behavior.

 

[Thanatos13]

On 9/2/2018 at 0:10 AM, Capital said:

 humans have the capacity to think objectively not considering thier own survival and reproduction agenda into the thinking process and it's pretty simple thing to do , It's called system thinking , so you don't have to transcend your subjective perspective and be an enlightened Buddha to think in an objective system thinking way and realise that morality is a mental construct that is constructed to only benefits one's agenda.

 

Again no it’s not. Also calling something a mental construct doesn’t make it any less real. It’s also not your agenda since you don’t get a say in it. The drive to survive is in all life and the creatures don’t get a say. That’s pretty objective. 

But you are a fool if you think humans can think objectively. Those who claim to are, IMO, kidding themselves. The desire to be objective dooms you from the start.

On 9/2/2018 at 11:47 AM, Shadowraix said:

Saying love is just a chemical reaction seems to be a very materialist paradigm statement.

The chemical reaction is just a tool for this manifestation of consciousness. Its an abstraction up for what things really are which is mind. And guess who that mind is? You. This whole mental creation is you. You created it. One of the core problems of morality is we often take on morality as if it can't be questioned. I'm still going through his rant on morality but as he stated in that morality doesn't derive from your social programming which is unconscious behavior. It derives from being conscious and acting through that. You must question morality and all values. Get to the root of your justification for every behavior.

 

The thing is that we have proof that it’s just a chemical. Your beliefs sound like idealism, which to me is more like a religion than philosophy. We didn’t create it, it happened and we found out the cause. 

You are mistaken about the core aspects of morality, it is often questioned. The debate on morality has continued on for years without any real headway. Morality is part social programming and part biology. He’s wrong about that. 

There is even a debate as to whether consciousness is real or not. The reason for justification is that faith is what religions do to get you. Sure it feels good, but it’s shaky ground. 

You need to ask yourself why any of this matters. Why question? What’s the point? Why does that matter? Why does truth matter? According to who? And again, why does it matter? How do you know what’s true? How do you know it isn’t a lie? 

I my opinion people just reach a point where they stop questioning. They chide others for not doing so but they inevitably just stop for some arbitrary reason. But you cannot escape morality, it’s hard wired into us (hence the murder but). 

[RichardY]

Sentimentality.

[Conscious life]

@Thanatos13 @Leo Gura morality isn't an absolute truth but it's someone truth. morality is someone dervitve truth. morality are Spritual formula. morality is a bridge to the truth. it's not a truth but a bridge to the truth.

morality discovered by people who have sacrifice themselves for truth, people who invest and seek truth. even though we did not get it from our essence, its a truth. morality can keep us from immoral lessons. if morality makes us feel blissful and make sense in our essence it means it is leading us to the truth.

morality is a technology. morality saves you time, energy, damage, catastrophe, and can avoid dysfunction.

moral values are very important for once people servival, in order to have a collective consusness, morality is required, otherwise we will behave like animals, its like a bargen for the good.

one thing we can do to morality is knowledge and understanding. 

morality always should be investigated for the purpose of knowing the truth, and to connect with our essence. 

 

You shouldn't always be against moral values, but understand them.

morality are created for low consciousness people, and can serve a great thing. 

you don't have to tell the buddha to be moral but for the low consciousness people serve great things. then the budhaa behave morally from the essence, and the low consciousness person behave like a buddha from morality. 

 

advantages of morality

 

it's saves you time

creates a common understanding

enhance civilization

 

disadvantage of morality 

it's makes you robot 

it's creates a false knowing or ego. 

it's kills your essence or knowing