Can values and morals be universal?

[VeganAwake]

Values and morals are socially conditioned mind made concepts.

So in that sense the only thing making them seem real are conditioned patterns of thinking. ❤

 

[Bodhitree]

The golden rule is pretty universal. It goes, do to others as you wish them to do to you.

[Scholar]

This is important to realize:

Awakening will not make you realize:

Do onto others as you wish them to do to you.

Instead it makes you realize:

There is no other, what you do onto others, you are doing onto you.

 

There is a lack of prescription here, a lack of ought. This is what is meant with transcending morality, morality only makes sense in the context of separation, atleast these oughts.

 

From there we realize, morality simply can be a tool for you to discover what you want to do onto yourself. And this is why reason is so helpful. Reason will help you find the behaviour that will make you the most happiest, the least suffering.

 

This is why, for finding happiness within the worldly Self, rationality is the basis of Morality. The most selfish thing to do, after awakening, becomes that which is the most rational and in this way moral thing to do. Because the most rational and moral will be in relationship to that which is the most selfish. It very much is a tautology.

Edited February 4, 2021 by Scholar

[Conscious life]

On 2/2/2021 at 4:22 PM, Nahm said:

@Conscious life

Survival’s a thought. Try to literally find it, point to it. Like death, birth, individual selves. Literally point to these, exactly, specifically these. Not notions, not thoughts about these. 

servival isn't only thought. servival itself is infinite. servival can become people's instinct, look, skin color, appearance, geography, etc. People could servive without thought and thinking. without identity. for example most austic people have no thought or thinking but they servive. servival is infinite itself. 

 

On 2/2/2021 at 3:58 PM, Megan Alecia said:

In theory turquoise values are higher than the others, because they are the least egocentric. 

there is no such thing least ego. by being least it become more. everyone and everybody has a unique and equal ego. 

[Ajay0]

On 5/25/2020 at 3:21 PM, Rhia said:

Due to my profession, I have gone through tons of literature on how humane values are created and perceived in different cultures, and I have found some of them being more prevalent than others in various geographical locations, and I started to wonder if these are inseparable from human nature and universal values, or it a historical impact of the meeting of cultures (still interesting how certain ideas are more likely to be picked over the others even dating back to before the appearance of any monotheistic religions - murder and stealing is wrong in most cultures, soul is separable from the body and is connected to higher entities, incest is wrong, and so on). Some values are highly variable depending on culture and location, some are present and strong almost everywhere. 

So the question here - are there universal values that necessarily present and are higher than others, and if so, do we have the right to consider them as a global moral code?

 

 The Golden Rule is a guide or moral compass that is surprisingly present in diverse cultures and nations such as the ancient egyptian, Indian, Greek, Persian , Roman, Chinese, Jewish, Christian, Islamic . Bahai and so on. It is also present in secular humanism as well.  This can be considered thus as ' a global moral code' as you stated. This also implies that universal values may exist whether we discover them or not, like the law of gravity.

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

 

 

[wwhy]

On 5/25/2020 at 9:15 PM, Leo Gura said:

Of course you do. Because you are selfish. And thus evil.

 

evil: wanting to stay alive.

evil: keeping children as sex slaves.

Are both versions of evil one and the same thing to you?

[Nahm]

@Conscious life

Nothing can really be said to be infinity. 

[Conscious life]

1 hour ago, Nahm said:

@Conscious life

Nothing can really be said to be infinity. 

it is the same as God. God is infinite, consciousness is infinite but we still talk about it. morality is absolute. the golden rule is true for everyone and everthing. 

[Scholar]

You can also frame it like this:

The nature of Subjectivity is such that it desires the Good. And because all Subjectivity constitutes the Self, the Self cannot help itself but Desire the Good.

Because it is inevitable to Desire the Good (in an ontological and metaphysical sense), any action already is motivated by a desire for the Good. This means to increase the Good in all of subjectivity is the only rational thing to do. Everything else is a failure of trying to achieve that which is desired in the first place.

The desire for the Good is the same in the ant as in the human, and both desire the very same Good. Of course, their actions will differ to reach the Good, leading to an individualistic pursuit of the Good. But because the Self is universal, the Good is universal aswell. Suffer is universal, Redness is universal. Because of this the action which creates the most Good, and therefore can be considered to the most desirable action, is the action which creates the most Good in all of Subjectivity.

 

In this kind of sense a natural harmony is created in the world, directly, without the need for conceptual morality. Balance will be found because it is the nature of the Good, the nature of desire, to seek itself. This is why, upon the enlightenment, there is a tendency for actions to align with harmony, because the realization of the Good for the Self makes obvious those actions which are most rational to achieve the Good.

 

In this case I am not using Good in terms of the absolute term, but rather the substantive or ontology of the Good refering to that which is in a dual relationship to Suffering.

The nature of Suffering is such that it is undesirable, that is very much what suffering is. In this way, it is a Perfect Creation. To call all of existence Universally Good, means to admit that the nature of Suffering is Good and perfect, and the nature of Suffering is to extinguish itself.

Which means to say that it is the Good to extinguish the Suffering. Everything else would be irrational, as it would not recognize the Perfection of Suffering. It would be a confusion of that which is the duality between the Good and Suffering, it would be moralistic, rather than pure recognition of Perfection.

 

This can be seen when the mind does not create Philosophy, when it is not so blinded by it's intellectual pursuits. And this is why those who have such purity in their mind can align their action with the Good to the greater degree, in this sense of not the absolute Good, but the universal, yet subjective Good.

[Scholar]

In other more simpler terms:

To understand and recognize the Perfection and Goodness of Existence, means to understand the Perfection and Goodness of Suffering. Selfless Love is to accept everything in existence as it is.

This means to accept Suffering for what it is. And because the Nature of Suffering is such that it seeks to extinguish itself, to accept the Nature of Suffering means to accept that Suffering is to be extinguished.

This is why the most Loving thing is to extinguish Suffering, because that is the nature of Suffering. This is the Perfection of the Will of God. See, God does not need to tell anyone or anything that Suffering is to be avoided or to be extinguished. His Will is build into the very substance and nature of Suffering. Suffering literally is that which is to be avoided, that is it's "purpose", it's ontology, it's substance, it's Perfection, it's Will. That is what Suffering is.

 

See, the Selfless looks at existence and accepts it, therefore allowing everything to self-perpetuate. Pleasure self-perpetuates by increase itself, that is the nature of pleasure. And Suffering perpetuates itself by extinguishing itself, that is the nature of suffering.

Can you see how it requires a moralistic mind, a confused mind, to not recognize this to be the truth?

Edited February 6, 2021 by Scholar