Can We Actually Invent Our Own Morality?

I suspect NOT!
That is not to say that we can't choose our own moral code & stick to it for the most part. Sociopaths apparently have no moral code at all. What happens when one's own chosen moral code encounters a new situation not previously pondered? Not all situations have the luxury of pondering before action is necessary.

Etymology Online Dictionary: ... Where there is no free agency, there can be no morality. Where there is no temptation, there can be little claim to virtue. Where the routine is rigorously proscribed by law, the law, and not the man, must have the credit of the conduct. (William H. Prescott, "History of the Conquest of Peru," 1847)

   Most of our language acquired current meaning since the 1400's . According to some that is about one incarnation ago.
       These thoughts occurred for me the other day out of noticing that sometimes moral panoramas occur for me when a tricky situation occurs like the Golden Rule (already invented) doesn't fit. I was walking Shadow, my rottweiler along the path & have to guide her away from things I don't want her to mess with i.e. other dogs & piles of shit. Her life is mostly through her nose & tongue. Sometimes I have to be rough with the training collar to keep both of us out of undesirable consequences (for me). Basically the dilemma is about tough love. I imagined what the Dog Whisperer would do. I thought about the Golden Rule working up & down the hierarchy from rocks all the way up to God. He would not let the dog run amok because, he usually says, a dog wants a pack leader & acts out when one does not show up. I have to give guidance & a yank on her collar changes where she puts her attention.
       I notice that panoramic images from past stories & pictures can guide: JFK calling forth a man on the Moon by the USA; MLK doing his "I have a Dream" speech; my father explaining the Jesus story from the Anthroposophical point of view at Christmas when I was around 8. Can we make up our own inspirational panoramas from scratch?
      NLP says we should be able to do so, but I still think not.
      Next consider how the Robin Hood fable manages to inspire modern politics in the face of one of the 10 commandments (or the Golden Rule): Thou shalt not steal ! Is it OK to steal from others if they have too much more than you have or you think they shouldn't have it?

Comments

Seth says

In a way this is more about integrity & self judgement. Nobody says you can't consider yourself always right when no authority exists that can do anything about it. It is more like educating yourself about what is good. Are the results in the World healthy for human beings?

Seth says

seth 2013-08-30 08:52:15 16727

Well i don't remember experiencing action from scratch ever. Is that what you refer to as "which does not come from the past. Being is instantaneous, immediate & out of nothing" ? It seems to me that "instantaneous being" like that would contradict nature herself.

If you are not free from the past you are not free. NOW (immediate) is a thingy we have discussed a lot - some make it a religion. It doesn't contradict nature because you can't see what makes a plant grow from the plant's point of view nor be in possession of the whole of the Gaia Spirit.

Seth says

seth 2013-08-30 08:12:45 16727

I don't see why not.

"If i am free, i determine what is right or wrong for me" -- Bozo Faust ~ 1980

Alternatively if there is some absolute authority as to what is right and wrong for me, then i am not free.

In any case, i have not found that authority.

There are, of course, many consequences of my actions that can be rationally predicted ... and just as many which cannot.

Thanks for the repost.

Your apparent stand agrees with the etymoligical dictionary quote above from 1847. I originally was interesting in creating some personal moral guidance which could inspire where a challenge exists which does not come from the past. Being is instantaneous, immediate & out of nothing. Is it always good? Who cares? The story of the Scorpion & the frog could inform us & say that we always act in accord with our inner nature. But is that being?

Seth says

ME 2013-08-30 09:55:04 16727

ME 2013-08-30 09:52:11 16727

BTW, there was no past experience which was close to being highlined from one ship to another in the middle of the ocean for me.

I don't think there was anything like that in the past for either of us when we walked across the hot coals for the first time in TR's firewalk weekend.

The metaphor of behavior Tony created as a tool to be used in the face of hesitation toward a personal goal. Your mileage may have varied.

Seth says

ME 2013-08-30 09:40:57 16727

seth 2013-08-30 08:52:15 16727

Well "free" is one of those big natural language notion which i cannot use binary logic with ... like for example "if you are not free from the past, you are not free". More usefully i prefer to ask whether i am free from X. For example am i free from some external control ... is Syria free to gas their citizens, without consequences imposed by the USA? I still think that i cannot choose to be free of my past, anymore than i could choose to suspend some other force of nature.

I certainly do not know of natures "plan" or "the whole of the Gaia Spirit". In that regard I am just like a baby who doesn't know of the protective adgenda of my parents. That lack of knowledge ... that lack of awareness ... does impart freedom of action to me ... hence, i can get into all manner of mischief and danger.

Seth says

seth 2013-08-30 10:16:20 16727

ME 2013-08-30 09:40:57 16727

seth 2013-08-30 08:52:15 16727

Yep, your limitations regarding the offending idea must be put aside, as I requested above, to get the purpose of this item. If you can't you're not free to do so & I will exercise other of my free options on this item.

Seth says

... hmmm ... i may, or may not, be getting your drift. Being, instantaneous, has no part of good or bad. Or in the words of the The Bard ...

source: Hamlet:
Why then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or
bad, but thinking makes it so. ...

... so then, we could not make up our own morality ... not decide between good and evil, for what is, just is ... no rational choice in the matter. Completely opposite to my "if i am free, then i decide what is right or wrong".

But then i still don't know if that is you point or not ... is it?

Seth says

seth 2013-08-30 16:26:38 16727

ME 2013-08-30 15:28:38 16727

Can we invent our own morality?

ok, i don' really have anything to add to what i have already said about that ... my answer is YES. "If i am free, i determine what is right or wrong for me" ... also see Towards My Rational Morality. ... but i still don't know what you are trying to get at. Your story about your dog is the case Joshua was talking about where a superior is in control of an inferior ... parent to child. i don't grock what that has to do with making up your own morality. After all, who is going to do it for us? Wisemen? The Messiah? I think morality is something we each choose.

Yeah! I was hoping to go maybe deeper into how it could be effectively done, maybe get beyond personal opinion, but this enough since I am getting sick of this thread. Everyone has their own morality. Assad has the morality of a sociopath & murderer & it bothers very few who can do anything about it. Yep - that's enough. Good for him, eh?

Seth says

Apparently Peter Ralston disagrees as well with the wallaby conversation:
Me (to Peter)

May I summarize: "being is instantaneous, immediate & out of nothing" without error as you see it?

My current problem then is the continuity of being, but you say continuity is a self problem, eh?

Thanks for BofNK & all the courses I took in our post.

Peter Ralston

11:38 AM (3 hours ago)

to me

Mark,

When you say "instantaneous, immediate, and out of nothing" you are still holding Being as verb, and action, not as "is." So, no it is fundamentally an error. Your view on continuity also is a confusion, since you see Being as a function of time, and not the absolute. But thanks for playing!

... well I can grok that.

Seth says

seth 2013-08-30 11:14:36 16727

ME 2013-08-30 11:06:19 16727

seth 2013-08-30 10:58:23 16727

ME 2013-08-30 10:52:02 16727

seth 2013-08-30 10:36:36 16727

ME 2013-08-30 10:26:44 16727

Put another way, it is my wallaby & you can't have it!

well, i'm really just trying to tease out what you "wallaby" is ... so far unsuccessfully.

Yes & that is just a tangent to the item purpose itself.

so i guess you don't actually want to express what your wallaby is in a manner that i can understand it over here ... and apparently my teasing it out is irritating you ... or that is what i am left to conclude.

oh well, stranger conversations have occurred here in the past.

No I just don't want to fill up the comments on this item with arguing about that wallaby. Zen doesn't happen by argument it happens more with contemplation. That being said, your usual penchent for avoiding the main point of an item by following one of its tangents down a rat hole is being rejected. If that's all you got then this is not the droid you are looking for.

so what is the main point?

Can we invent our own morality?

Seth says

seth 2013-08-31 07:52:35 16727

source: Mark above
Is it OK to steal from others if they have too much more than you have or you think they shouldn't have it?

No. But if one group is oppressing another group, then it is OK to fight the oppression. When one group is depriving your group of the natural resources needed to flourish, it is OK to take them back. It is not a judgement that "they have too much", that gave Robin Hood his allure. It is the judgement, we don't have what we need, because they have too much, that makes it a revolutionary act to rob the rich and give to the poor. It is a struggle against oppression.

Yep, see this - it helps to understand where your morals come from. Zero-sum game ? Who are you to judge that I have too much & stealing some is OK? We don't have what we need because you have too much? BULLSHIT! Try doing something else besides thinking binary, eh? That makes as much sense as "there are too many poor people - too big a burden - lets kill them off & there will be more to go around with less people to share it". Or as Obama seems to think - we need more jobs - I'm working hard to get more - lets invite in a lot more immigrants to help with that.

Seth says

seth 2013-08-31 09:04:05 16727

i'm not going to be having a conservative vs liberal fight with you here.

I rather suspect that we both now believe that, were we humans to live by rules and morals, that we must make them up ourselves ... and agree in groups to follow them. There is not much more to say in this context, is there?

KEWL!

Not all sides are equal in a fight! I don't remember any heavy-weight boxing case where the result was a draw, do you?

Maybe try something besides fighting as your metaphor, eh?

Can We Actually Invent Our Own Morality?

Tags

Comments

See Also