A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Are you kidding?

We spend more then $600 billion on a military which is currently involved in a shooting war as well as several active hostile standoffs. We are killing people daily. The military is by far the biggest part of our discretionary budget, and I am not even counting the human cost. This all has enjoys broad support from American society.

We recently toppled the governments of the Taliban and Saddam through direct military force, each time causing great social upheaval and each time acting with the intent of forcing social changes (e.g. more rights for women).

No I am not kidding that is why I used the word many of us have evolved and became more emotionally intelligent and have a larger ethical radius that includes many more people into our tribe. We found that it is more profitable to work with the people on the other side of the hill than to use up our resources fighting them.
Sure there are others and a large majority who have not figured this out yet and lag behind.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

We recently toppled the governments of the Taliban and Saddam through direct military force,

Yes, those were both examples of the ultimate war crimes, armed aggression against a sovereign nation.

Quote:

each time causing great social upheaval

No biggee. When there no concern about a million dead, why should there be any concern about lives destroyed, kids playing with cluster bombs, kids dying of diseases born of depleted uranium - I wonder if the US has come up with their next WMD to use on god only knows who is next.

Quote:

and each time acting with the intent of forcing social changes (e.g. more rights for women).

Those lies play well even in places other than Peoria.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

It just so happens patterns of behavior are not that far apart from each other even from the most remote culture you can find for an example...it doesn't ad up !

Do you think that we really want what we desire?

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

I think Zizek gets at the distinction between hedonism and eudaimonia, pretty well in that video.
Zizek is a very interesting person. He takes sociological reality very seriously, not so much in this video, but in a lot of his debates/lectures.

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

He takes sociological reality very seriously,

You have an interest in reality, Matt? Whodda thunk such a thing?

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

I also see zen as "beyond good and evil." Indeed samsara equals nirvana when it's seen clearly.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

Does zen inform ethics? Or are ethics arbitrary in zen?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

We can be happy but not by getting what we desire. So some of what he says is correct but the title at least IMHO is wrong... he just doesn't know what unconditioned happiness is... most people don't... of course.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

Exactly!!!

0 Replies

@igm,

gettin what u desire is for liars but doin what u desire is not being true nor for rights
u enjoy sayin unconditionnal to give urself a magic false eternal recognition paper of being right always, it doesnt mean anything here, when u do what u desire is the sense of being happy bc u r gettin of course all what u want from being u exactly
but being u whatever u in concept is a dream or will or fancy of superior ability or fancy about magical existin reality and realisations is nothing at all to least of smthg existence rights

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

The connection between meditative practice* and ethics is the development of compassion, a disposition toward the stance of others rather than that of ego.
*I believe this is particularly, but not exclusively, so with Mahayana Buddhism.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

There is no objective judge that can decide whether you are right or people who disagree with you are right. Nor is there an objective experiment that you can run that will yield any evidence.

You just have to accept it on faith. But if it helps, I agree with you that aggressive violence is wrong, I just reject the faith path.

No you don't. You just have faith in your own set of morals.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Which, of course, as is the case with all Buddhists, doesn't mean you have to actually go out and do anything to improve the material condition of the poor and downtrodden.

3 Replies

@JLNobody,

I guess my point, to put it bluntly, is that I don't see the intellectual "Buddhists" offering much in the way of help to those less "enlightened" than themselves. If compassion assists in transcending ego, how are the more Western-educated "Buddhists" assisting in making samsara more compassionate?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I don't think that is true of all who follow in the Buddhist tradition, but it does seem particularly lacking among the Western "Buddhist" apologists. Trans-egoism does not equate with anti-egoism. Anti-egoism is a form of nihilism.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

no wat u r meanin by callin anti egoism has nothing to do with nihilism

it is incredible how far u insist on lies inventions when meanin to use an observation of smthg that has never any relation with u

nihilism is to nonexistence will then it would never recognize anything else existin either

antiegoism is to individual freedom being existin really, then it is the most stable stand therefor any else recognition in constant terms is a source of living to its own freedom right

1 Reply

@imans,

Nihilism does not deny existence Imans.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Actually, there is a large movement in "western" Buddhism (i.e., zen and vipassana) referred to as "engaged Buddhism" that is very concerned with "doing good." Keep up.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

That's right, Matt. As I see it Nihilism only denies absolute attributions to Reality and existence.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Do you commune with the concept of (upaya/Wittgenstein's ladder) when discussing morality with someone at a different stage of moral development?

1 Reply

A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know