A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

I don't think it is a matter of nullifying morality. The problem with right and wrong is that they are culturally and socially defined. Most people are so desensitized by the frequency of which we hear of the ill effects of our conduct that we shrug it off, not seeing the link between our excess wealth and the severe shortages elsewhere. It is morally acceptable to hoard more than a thousand generations of your family could ever spend while thousands starve because of it. We even look up to those people and see them as successful. By what twisted morality do we roll here?
It is not by learning about some mystical beliefs from the east that I have arrived at these question. It is through the practice of examining my own beliefs.

Just for the record, I do not consider myself a buddhist. Zen is a perspective, not a belief.

That point was just waiting to be made, and the way you did it I could just see the sunglasses come on. hehe

I am very happy to see you started this thread maxdancona. I think that morality is discussed way less than it should be and there have been some really good replies from people who I find enlightened and I hope they keep this thread running strong.

I think that one of the big problems we face is tribalism or something like it. We have Democrats, Republicans, different faiths, different teams in sports and so forth that we seem to side with but I would like to see this fade away and everyone become independent in their thinking. We are all caught up in sociological currents and I would rather see us caught up in a different type of current "maybe one that values science and logical reasoning.

And I really did not mean it as an insult...just an observation. I find that I have that same observation about so many rigidly held belief systems or codes.

Sometimes adherents remind me of a reformed smoker (and you know how they can be!)

I must not understand you because I am unable to see happiness unless the condition is right. Example if it is to hot or cold happiness seems not to exist but rather misery.

There is a great deal of arrogance in many of the posts here. I hate to post and join the club. Much of the 'immoral' behavior' associated with Buddhists are common in humanity. The "teachings" are what matter, not the students. We are all fallible, and greedy, and often violent. Karmas a bitch. Yes we join tribes to survive. Yes we hoard to survive, beyond reasonableness. We are a violent, greedy, selfish species and that will be our downfall. In the meantime, I want to live a quiet, peaceful life. Yes, maybe the ultimate selfishness.

Could it be an insult? It's only the truth... Any faith is expressed by it's adherents, and the moral value of that faith depends on the quality of the people, not their beliefs.

Then we are all doomed to the failings of man. Our natural tendencies to fight exceed any other motivations.

Maybe this misses the point of zen realization, but I do not see anywhere evidence of an absolute distinction between good and bad, right and wrong, and true and false. I only see preferences in a world of greys which are often crystalized into institionalized black and white distinctions. This does not render me a psychopath for I still have preferences, but their source is not formal socially constituted distinctions, at least not wholly. My preferences reflect my personality (which includes cultural conditioning which I'm always challenging when I find it unsupported by experience). My "ethical" responses are strongly situational and not absolute. This is illustrated by the scene where Tom Sawyer (or was it Huck Finn?) was hiding the escaped slave, Jim, from his pursuers. He felt compeled to help Jim even though he knew that it was "wrong" to do so, that it showed him to be a "bad" boy. He knew the rules and he knew "right from wrong", but he felt in his heart that he had to do "wrong".
Now zen (and other less formalized aspects of Buddhism) enjoins the individual to develop his capacity for compassion and let that guide his ethical life, not simple absolute mores.

Jesus wept . . . Little Johnny One Note. You have not established that the economic exploitation to which you refer is: first, taking place at all; that it is perpetrated by Christians, other than perhaps in name only; or that is co-terminal with the recipients of Christian charity. You also apparently don't read very well, or don't bother to read what others post. As i have already pointed out, when i referred to Catholic and Lutheran social services, i was specifically referring to their activities in the United States, something which i am qualified by my experience to address. You just can't let go of your economic exploitation shibboleth. You can't abandon the ideological picture of the world upon which this bullshit you're spouting is based.

*************************************************

Several people here, many of whom are relentlessly critical of Christianity, are rushing to the defense of Buddhism: therefore, i will repeat the points i am making:

1. First, that prating about enlightenment, or a state of grace, is gross superstitious nonsense, absent any proof that there is such a thing as enlightenment, and that it is attainable. This makes Buddhism no different from any other form of religious superstition.

2. That many people are badly impoverished in the parts of Asia in which there are a great many Buddhists, or in which Buddhism predominates. Yet Buddhists not only do nothing to alleviate this material suffering, they just prate about enlightenment while those suffering peasants provide the wherewithal for Buddhist monks to eat every day without doing a lick of work to get their daily bread. One participant this this thread just repeatedly maundered about how enlightenment relieves suffering when i tried to get him to address the issue of what a poor farmer is to do when his children go to bed hungry every night.

3. Finally, that many Buddhists, and there are at least two people in this thread who imply and sometimes even overtly state that their belief set is superior to the belief sets of others. Hell, Cyracuz came rushing in here to deny that Buddhism is a religion, but now denies that he is a Buddhist.

These responses to criticism of Buddhism reek of gross hypocrisy.

Thank you again for your civility and reasonableness.
This is something we all could learn from.

I do however, disagree with the portion above [in quotes].
I don't predict a downfall, though a downfall is certainly possible.
We are also a loving, sharing, and altruistic species. Culture helps us to manifest both (the attributes you list and the attributes I have listed).
I don't disagree that culture helps shape belief. The present condition is such that ALL humans have beliefs.
Those beliefs deserve examination.
Personal beliefs help shape culture.
Cultural beliefs help shape persons.
I appreciate your advocacy of compassion. I (hope) that I am also compassionate. My compassion does not lead me to inaction, physically or verbally.
I have not written off the world. I will not retreat into an enlightenment, if that enlightenment causes disinterest in my fellow creatures, or inaction on their behalf.
I am deeply sorry if that implies arrogance.
I would be willing to consider any dissent to the notion that compassion is an absolute moral good.

Frank, thanks for your comments...and thanks for the way you express yourself on this issue. It was a comment, as Cyracuz noted, begging to be said.

In a way I was going for the ironic as well as the potential humor of the comment.

But, of course, in another way...I am talking about the attitude of Buddhists, both here and in my real life.

I often express this (borrowed from Ican): "What is there about the air of the subcontinent that causes people there to think they have the answers to everything."

I think Buddhists would be much, much better off if they never ever mentioned the words "enlightened" or "enlightenment."

Yes, I know...they are a kind of metaphor...and they have all sorts of qualifications once challenged, but they are substantially identical in essence with the Catholic, "We are the only true Church founded by God through His Son, Jesus Christ."

No special problems with thinking either of those two things; lots and lots of problems with articulating them.

In any case, I honestly do not mean to slam Catholics, Buddhists or any other group. You do what you do...and I do what I do.

Existence is a great mystery. Anyone asserting "truths" about it normally gets questions or comments from me.

Personal contentment appears to be subjective both in defining it and in the means to achieve it. We all come to it in our own way. For my Buddhist friends and fellow humans: If you come to it through meditation--good for you. But if you are going to term the achievement "enlightenment"...best you do so silently to yourself.

There is no doubt of this in my mind, and if fact compassion is the basis of moral good, I would say. When I spoke of arrogance I was considering many other posts that simply say ' well Buddhists haven't saved the world, so it is invalid." It's a nice position to take to deny all the value of any religion and proclaim them to be negative based upon the observations of 'human' activity. That activity takes place across the board and if that defines religion as a failure, then it applies to all.

The word I used, 'doom', was probably a over reaction. I don't know if we are doomed. Probably not in my lifetime. But it is my observation that our capacity to fight and destroy far exceeds our propensity for compassion. There are many exceptions but far too few.

That tendency to fight even extends down to a personal level. Certainly, our political situation today is a fine example. It also happens here on this board. If we can't overcome conflict at a personal level, how can we expect 'mankind' to do anything different ?

To the OP. To me, whether or not morals are 'absolute' is the wrong question. Is anything absolute? How would we know? (Frank A's answer). But clearly it appears to me that karma works. The closer I come to moral behavior the better my life seems to go. That probably works for me because the basics are readily available to me. If I was starving in a ditch I may take a different view. But it seems that even after we get ourselves out of the ditch and have the basic needs fulfilled our instincts still rule our behavior. If there is anything absolute, it is our will to survive, by any means possible.

I dissent.

I defy you to establish that it is not a subjective consideration.

I second the dissent. I would put many things above compassion, and there are times when I think compassion leads to the wrong course of action.

I value liberty very highly. And I value justice. These are common core values in the American society.

Part of the reason for this is misunderstanding. It is impossible to explain the meaning of enlightened in words. Perhaps the subcontinent appears to think that way because they have a thousand or so years head start? It would be impossible to discuss Buddhism without discussing enlightenment or some other word meaning the same thing. Doesn't every religion maintain that they have the one 'answer'? After all my Baptists neighbors say you can't get to heaven without going through Jesus.

Actually, I think Buddhists do much less 'selling' of their point of view than many others. We tend to get into these discussions here, but this is a bit different.

I agree with that 100%. Sometimes people ask.

Thanks for the response, Frank. I suspect we are closer in thought than a casual inspection might suggest.

One thing on which I would comment:



A thousand years head start over western philosophy?????

Are you including Greece as part of the subcontinent?

I know and that's what you're missing out on. If happiness depends on causes and conditions then they are temporary. What's the long-term point to that?

When we're not happy then we must by definition be unhappy even if we don't realize it. If our horizons only stretch to conditioned happiness then perhaps our horizons are unnaturally foreshortened?