Where do we get our understanding of right and wrong?

That which mitigates, or reduces suffering is "good". To think, speak, or act in ways that increase suffering is "bad". This is the simple balance, but it is by no means so simple in application.

First, we need to understand what the sources of suffering are so that we can choose the path least likely to lead to more suffering. Thousands of pages of Buddhist thought over a couple of thousand years have examined suffering, its causes and cure. I won't burden you here with that, if you are interested it shouldn't be difficult to discover the fundamentals of Buddhist doctrine. If you have a question, ask it.

To really attempt living in a way that is "good" by this definition is very difficult. First, we must be constantly mindful of our inner-being and the way that we react to our environment. It is very easy to let our ego and emotions jump too quickly to a stimulus. In a moment's anger, or envy, we can lose our inner calm, say hurtful things, and/or behave in ways that cause pain to follow. Even constant vigilence and self-discipline is no guarantor that our thoughts, words and actions will not result in increased suffering.

We intend one thing, and the result is sometimes quite different. Give a dollar to a beggar, and the result may as easily be negative as positive. Fail to spank a child when they play with matches (spared them the pain and indignity of the punishment), and they may later burn down your house making the whole family homeless. Stay silent when a person says something that reveals a hateful thought, and you may avoid a fight or you may be letting the sickness breed and grow stronger. Speak up when you hear the hateful thought spoken, and you may destroy any chance of changing it. Are we thinking, speaking and acting selflessly, or are we assuming that WE know better and more fully what is going on than anyone else? Its awefully easy to become self-righteous, and thereby we harm ourselves and lose the opportunity to make a more positive contribution. We can not know all. Causes are lost in the past, and results are always fleeing from us into the future. Without knowing all the causes and results, we are constantly having to make choices based on probabilities and assumptions.

Doing "good" is a dangerous business, so we need to restrain ourselves and carefully consider how we react to the world around us. That which we know best is ourselves, yet most folks spend surprisingly little time in self-examination. Before we try to save the world, we have to first tear our the weeds in our own garden. Work to improve your thoughts, and your words will be less likely to harm. Speak thoughtfully, and the actions that follow are less likely to cause suffering for anyone. Become balanced and in harmony, and those around you will want to share your peace, tranquility and good fortune. Good fortune, because once you have mastered yourself you will succeed at any task you set yourself. Gathering around you others whose goal is to be free of suffering, and not to cause further suffering, creates power to influence a wider circle. Improve yourself, and be a more successful world conqueror than Alexander the Great.

Superbly reasoned and expressed Asherman.

I wonder though how we make the moral decision in the face of possible or inevitable dual consequences of our actions? The hunter fells a deer and feeds his hungry family and this is good. For the deer, it is bad.

An African farmer clears another few acres and is thus able to support his family for awhile longer and this is good. But the rain forest he destroys will not return in this generation and that is tragic.

The environmentalists successfully block the timber industry and thereby save an old growth forest and the spotted owls within and this is good. But thousands of workers go on unemployment or are displaced from their homes and this is bad.

We are torn between the risk of refusing a hungry man food and the risk of our benevolence going for cheap wine and sometimes deadly violence.

As Asherman said, doing good is a dangerous business. How do we know what the right thing to do is?

but where do you get the value in that what is good or bad, and right or wrong? subjective

We act carefully, and after due consideration. It's almost always safest to work on yourself. If, and when, you get yourself straightened out then you may be able to do something for others. In the meantime, we just have to do the best we can and not expect too much. Suffering is bound up with what to a Buddhist is a mistaken notion of reality. If you can see clearly, then the mistakes you make in trying to help others are fewer and less damaging.

It's impossible for us to foresee all consequences of our actions, so all we can do is that which we perceive is right and hope for the best. Sometimes we will make mistakes, but that is wholly natural, and a part of the learning experience. As I see it, the intentions is what ultimately matters. "Do to others as you would have them do to you" is a good guideline to follow in most situations, although it will of course not always apply due to people being different etc.

Derevon- And what guides me is the corollary of that maxim, "The right to swing your arm ends at the other fellow's nose."

Derevon writes:


I think it is also easier to do in relationships than it is in to do as a vocation. That African, for instance, with plenty of money, a roof over his head, and food in his belly has the luxury of working on himself, caring about the animals and the rain forrest and the ozone hole, etc. etc. etc.

But if his children go to bed hungry at night and there is an empty gnawing in his belly, how much will he care about anything but clearing a few more acres to grow more meager crops or graze a few more cattle? How can good be done here without also doing irreparable harm?

You can think of a million scenarios where a paradox like that exists.

Interesting article I read in Discovery about a month ago: I believe this is the same article, found it online.

http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2004/articles_2004_Morality.html

Get your own house in order before worrying about you neighbor's lack of table manners. We can do little to solve the big problems that the world faces, but we can make our own lives meaningful and productive. Little can be done to eliminate the suffering of disease, less about growing old, or dying. We can control our appetites, avoid anger, envy, and greed. Patience can be learned by sitting in silence, and in silence we learn to plumb the depths of our being. Know thyself, and then take the steps necessary to reduce the causes of suffering that spring from within us.

I think that anything which is truly good, or bad, even on a religious level, can be explained logically. The problem is that we are all at different levels of logical ability.

It's common sense. By that I mean, we as humans have formed civilizations, cultures and societies based on common ideas or beliefs. Many of these were or are held as truths by all people and some are specific.
We all know that something going up will come down but not all of us know which mushrooms are the safest. In other words, in our society, we have a commonly held set of standards which define good and bad. Some are based on thousands of years of observation, such as not touching anything hot and others develope due to need.
A need could be entertained as a way to keep the people in line, so a caste system is developed. In modern western society this could be seen as bad. But in the India paradigm, many see it as good.

When I was a child, a car my family was driving in was totalled by a drunk driver. He was loaded and could barely stand up. He drove away from the accident.
These were the days of three martini lunches and you had one for the ditch, people smoked everywhere - it was considered normal 'til consensus changed the behavior and ideas of the general public.

I really like the theory presented by Kohlberg.

He studied what he called "moral development". This field is interested in "why" we have our morals (i.e. what reasoning we use to support them) rather than what are our morals.

He identified 6 stands of "moral reasoning" that people go through. As a person matures their morals mature. We go to a new stage when the old stage doesn't apply any more.

Here is a link that describes the stages pretty well...

http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberg.html

I think this theory explains a lot about the differences in human morality.

Initially you get your ideas of right and wrong from your parents, then from teachers, peers, and values internalized from the society in which you live. With maturity, you may examine your beliefs and develop your own ideas of right and wrong based on empathy, fairness, rights, worth of individuals, and how the world "ought" to be.

IMO, it is wrong to cause unnecessary pain. It is good to maximize happiness for yourself and those you care about, as long as doing so does not hurt anyone.

Thalion, interesting article, especially the studies that show monkeys and chimps have a sense of fairness.

The trolley problem was discussed at length here: The Trolley Problem

ebrown, Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning make sense. So to insure order, a society must provide incentives/punishment to appeal to people at various stages of moral development.

I did not see any reference to the will of God as the source of our understanding of right and wrong.

Terry,

Kohlberg spoke about how you make a *personal* decision about what is right and wrong. His theory doesn't worry about ensuring order.

The phrase "society must provide incentives/punishment" is the way Kohlberg would say someone who is in stage 4 would think. In stage four a person says "I will accept the incentives/punishment" of society as my view of right and wrong.

But society consists of people operating and higher and lower levels of moral reasoning. There is nothing wrong with this. This theory doesn't say anything about what is best for a society at large.

Fascinating discussion! And the links are thought provoking and informative. Do you all think then that conscience is a learned response and cannot be separated from our life experience?

While I agree with Asherman that we should get our own house in order before condemning others, I think everyone here at some time or other might recognize 'wrong' and act on the spot to stop it. What would prompt us to do that?

It is said that true virtue is that behavior when nobody is watching and/or there is no personal consequence.

Scenario: A billfold bulging with cash is left unattended on a bench. There is no one watching. Assuming that all are of similar economic standing, what is it that prompts one person to turn it in so that the rightful owner can claim it, another to leave it in case the rightful owner returns for it, and another to take it celebrating his good fortune?

Understanding and behavior are two different issues. Your understanding of right and wrong does not directly affect your behavior.

You could reason that taking the billfold is wrong. This doesn't mean that you won't take it and celebrate your good fortune.

I would bet that all of us do things that we understand are morally wrong.

EDIT: Added a pronoun (we)