Moral Relativity & Karma

[King Merk]

If morality is entirely relative then how is there such a thing as good and bad karma?

I know morality is a byproduct of the ego to support survival needs but intuitively there seems to be a deeper sense of ‘rightness/‘wrongness’ that transcends morality.

I’m struggling to understand why I’m viscerally against things like murder, torture, rape, etc. Is it simply because I don’t want it to happen to me?

I don’t understand why I have this desire to minimize the suffering of others if morality is relative?

For example, Leo does this by warning again suicide even though hypothetically there’s nothing wrong with killing one’s self.

Can anyone make sense of all this? Is it simply a paradox that can’t make sense?

[Kksd74628]

@King Merk

You struggle against murder, because you don't accept knowing that "others" are being hurt, but first of all you imagine that there are others who are being hurt. You will live everyone else's life at some point and that is why they say that you are all alone, because there is only one having these lifes. You can't minimize suffering, because all possible situations will happen; even the opposite of everything you do. If you help someone then in other life you will not help them which leads you to have new life of being and not being helped.

Knowing what I just said leads to one insight and one question most of the times. In absolute level there is no reason to help anyone so why would I continue doing it. My answer is that, if your only reason you help others is because you don't want them to suffer or you want them to feel better then stop immendiately. Take care of one "dream" at the time and focus having as much fun as possible in it enjoying every moment as well as possible. In absolute level even this does not make any difference, because you will have "dreams" where you did or didn't enjoy it based on what you did NOW.

Just decide how you want this dream to unfold based on what makes you happy, because that is the only thing you need to do. It's like going to "dream at night" and obsessively trying to help dream characters only, because you think they are real. That is exactly what is happening right NOW, but you don't want to accept it for many reasons like that would make you feel sad and lonely, but my question for you is that what it changes if others are real or not.

-joNi-

Edited April 10, 2022 by Kksd74628

[Breakingthewall]

I don't think morality is relative. I think there is good and evil. On the one hand, there is integrity and disinterest, and on the other, falsehood and selfishness. You notice it clearly if you are open to it, and it is not something learned, it is innate.

[zurew]

2 hours ago, King Merk said:

I don’t understand why I have this desire to minimize the suffering of others if morality is relative?

Why others don't have this desire or why others desire the opposite? 

Where does desire comes from?

[Carl-Richard]

Karma is not morality. It's physics.

Morality is about survival.

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Morality is about survival

 the false morality dictated by society is about survival. the true ethics that springs naturally from a person when he is selfless and integral is real

[zurew]

18 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

the false morality dictated by society is about survival. the true ethics that springs naturally from a person when he is selfless and integral is real

If your survival is threatened it doesn't matter how developed you are, you will act in a biased way. 

There is no such thing as 'true ethics' it is all subjective. Just for yourself to survive you need to live in a selfish way. Even if you are a vegan you still kill plants, why your life has more value compared to a plant? 

You life is depended upon a lot of consumption. When there is a finite amount of consumable resources there will never be a notion like 'true ethics'. We can thrive to be more ethical but it won't be 'true ethics'.

As long as you have an ego, you cannot live fully selflessly - so you can't have true ethics

 

[Breakingthewall]

10 minutes ago, zurew said:

If your survival is threatened it doesn't matter how developed you are, you will act in a biased way. 

not always, and there are degrees. On one side are the saints who completely renounce the ego and do what must be done without considering their interest, for example allowing themselves to be crucified, or tortured. it is something that has always existed. At the other extreme is the total egoist, who only pursues his interest, corrupt, vicious, deceived and deeply unhappy. good and evil, anywhere and at any time. 

[Carl-Richard]

25 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

do what must be done without considering their interest, for example allowing themselves to be crucified, or tortured.

In that case, you're just allowing someone to rule somebody else's (your) survival. How is that moral?

[Breakingthewall]

5 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

In that case, you're just letting someone rule somebody else's (your) survival. How is that moral?

for example, you know deeply that it is wrong that there is slavery, so you denounce this fact. You do not do it to elevate yourself, nor for any ideal of how a saint should be, but because something really yells at you: denounce this injustice. you know that by doing so you will most likely be killed, but you do what must be done without worrying about yourself. this has happened in innumerable cases and circumstances, and it is what makes human society not total rubbish

[zurew]

24 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

not always, and there are degrees. On one side are the saints who completely renounce the ego and do what must be done without considering their interest, for example allowing themselves to be crucified, or tortured. it is something that has always existed. At the other extreme is the total egoist, who only pursues his interest, corrupt, vicious, deceived and deeply unhappy. good and evil, anywhere and at any time. 

Okay ,lets say that there are or there were people who were completely selfless (i don't believe that tho) . For their own survival they had to consume food and water. Even if they were totally vegan they had to 'kill' the plants to survive. Why can a human destroy other thing's life for their own survival?

 

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

you know deeply that it is wrong that there is slavery, so you denounce this fact

It is subjective that slavery is wrong, slavery is good for people who own slaves. Why do you want to destroy their position of power for your own ideal world? See it is all subjective. Why you want to create a world where is no suffering or a lot less suffering, when there are people who want more suffering? Why do you want to destroy their values / ideals?. 

You want to create a nondual world in a dual world - this is why i said as long as you have an ego, you can't have 'true ethics' 

[Breakingthewall]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

Even if they were totally vegan they had to 'kill' the plants to survive.

Im not saying that kill is wrong. And there are degrees of selfless. 100% selfless is impossible except if you are dead. so it could be said that the only good human is the dead human. but it can be, for example, 70% selfless, which is very different from 2%, 98% liar, vicious and narcissistic.

The thing is that's it works in a counterintuitive sense. the closer you get to selfless, the happier, the more selfish, the more unhappy. so it could also be said that the true egoist, who seeks real happiness, tends to be selfless. or put another way, the smart one is selfless, the idiot, selfish

[zurew]

3 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Im not saying that kill is wrong. And there are degrees of selfless. 100% selfless is impossible except if you are dead. so it could be said that the only good human is the dead human. but it can be, for example, 70% selfless, which is very different from 2%, 98% liar, vicious and narcissistic.

I agree with this, but this is why i don't think there is true morality or true ethics. I know that there is a spectrum here, and we should thrive towards to be better. But that is still all subjective. I am arguing that it is subjective thats all, i agree with the notion that there is a spectrum.

I was thinking about this selfless thing before and how it could change our justice system. Most justice work could be reduced if everyone would be as selfless with spiritual work as he/she can

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by zurew

[Breakingthewall]

16 minutes ago, zurew said:

It is subjective that slavery is wrong, slavery is good for people who own slaves.

the question is not whether slavery is wrong or right. it is what happens in you if you witness it in a completely disinterested way. You may see it as something indifferent, it was just an example. but probably when you see how children are separated from their mothers so that an owner can sell them to a brothel and thus buy jewelry, as a dramatic example, something in you sees it as wrong. Except if you are totally selfish and you can't see nothing beyond what's positive or negative to your situation in the world 

8 minutes ago, zurew said:

But that is still all subjective

Yes it is, but subjective is objetive at the end

[zurew]

5 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Yes it is, but subjective is objetive at the end

From the absolute sense, yes. But when we are talking about morality no. Is that moral to force a moral system on anyone, who don't want to participate in it?

If x person have a moral system where slavery is good and y person have a moral system where slavery is bad how do you solve that? Its a dual problem, so it cannot be solved objectively. Or if you want to stay with the 'but subjective is objetive at the end' what does that mean in this scenario?

[Carl-Richard]

42 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

for example, you know deeply that it is wrong that there is slavery, so you denounce this fact. You do not do it to elevate yourself, nor for any ideal of how a saint should be, but because something really yells at you: denounce this injustice. you know that by doing so you will most likely be killed, but you do what must be done without worrying about yourself. this has happened in innumerable cases and circumstances, and it is what makes human society not total rubbish

How is slavery bad if you don't care about survival?

[Breakingthewall]

20 minutes ago, zurew said:

From the absolute sense, yes. But when we are talking about morality no. Is that moral to force a moral system on anyone, who don't want to participate in it?

If x person have a moral system where slavery is good and y person have a moral system where slavery is bad how do you solve that? Its a dual problem, so it cannot be solved objectively. Or if you want to stay with the 'but subjective is objetive at the end' what does that mean in this scenario?

Well It could be said that the ideal is to create an artificial moral system based on natural morality. and understand natural morality as the subjective tendencies of justice that occur in the completely disinterested person. 

10 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

How is slavery bad if you don't care about survival?

 It's selfish. you can not care about survival but prefer the truth to lie

Edited April 10, 2022 by Breakingthewall

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

It's selfish. you can not care about survival but prefer the truth to lie

?

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

?

If you are completely indifferent it doesn't matter whether you are slave or free, or torturing children or whatever, but as a human, slavery is extremely selfish, have slaves will increase your ego and take you away from the truth and plunge you into suffering. so it is impossible to be completely indifferent while you are human, so you can say that good and evil are absolute from the human point of view