Needing justification for morality

[Huntun]

Acting compassionately doesn't necessarily require a thought out intellectual justification or a theory of morality. Humans generally don't like suffering and they are able to feel empathy. Add those two and compassionate actions are likely to take place with or without a theory of morality. In fact labeling certain people or even actions "immoral" might simply lead to more conflict and reasons for fighting. The Taoists recognized that a long time ago.

 

[Huntun]

Re: Taoists and the problem of moralism:

The Daoist sage's neutrality and indifference with respect to opposites such as long/short, before/after... will not seem strange to many readers. Even equanimity in regard to distinctions such a beautiful/ugly... or agreeing/rejecting will probably seem plausible while viewing them within the Daoist philosophical context. We are quite willing, for instance to "emancipate" the ugly and admit that it may also have it's merits... The sages indiffernce, however, becomes more problematic in regards to the moral distinction good/bad or, to put it in more religous terms, the differnce between good and evil. But even if this may seem somewhat scandalous, I would argue that, from a Daoist perspective, indiffernce is particularly important when it comes to moral evaluations. The sage in the Laozi is also morally impartial or, in Nietzschean terms, beyond good and evil. Chapter 49 says the following about the Daoist sage:

That which is good
he holds to be good.
That which is not good
he also holds to be good.
Thus he attain goodness.

That which is true
he holds to be true.
That which is not true
he also holds to be true.
Thus he attains truth.

... The sages indifference in moral issues is all the more important because morality is so volatile. Moral differences may easily turn into conflicts, and these often lead not only to qurraels but to the use of force and violence, if not war. Moral distinctions are particualrly dangerous. In non human nature there is no morality to be observed. Winter is not more "evil" than summer, it just colder. In the human realm, however moral distinctions can easily turn antagonstic. Thus a complementary distinction can become adveserial. Morality thus poses a major threat to social stability. If the sage ruler would be partial, they would violate the balance in society and become antagonistic themselves. Therefore they refrain from moral judgements. By not taking part in moral communication and communication about right and wrong, the rulers prevent their communications from turning violent. Chapter 22 (laozi) says about the sage ruler:

well,
It is only because he does not struggle
that no one can struggle with him.

chapter 8

It is because only he does not struggle
that there are no calamities.

same chapter also says:

The best is like water.
The goodness of water consists in
its being beneficial to the 10,000 things,
and in that it, when there is contention, takes on the place
which the masses of the people detest.

- The Philosophy of the Daodejing by Hans Georg Moeller
​

According to the Dadejing conscious theories of "morality" don't come about until after people have already lost the Way:

When the great Dao is dispensed with,
then there is humanity and righteousness.
When knowledge and smartness come out,
then there is great falsity.

Also note how moral speech always increases during times of war and conflict.


Hans-Georg Moeller also wrote http://www.amazon.com/The-Moral-Foo...1399990603&sr=8-5&keywords=hans+georg+moeller a book that brings up some of these same issues but not specifically from the Daoist perspective. I haven't got around to reading it yet but it looks interesting:

The Moral Fool: A Case for Amorality

 

[quatona]

A God.

This circular reasoning makes me all dizzy.

If you do not think God exists, then you do not have any true moral code.

Whether or not there is that which you consider a "true moral code" (i.e. a God-given code) doesn´t hinge on the beliefs of people if or not God exists. It hinges on God´s existence, and - not to forget - on the question if God has given out a moral code, to begin with.

Furthermore, even though you believe in the existence of God you may be wrong in your god concept and/or in your idea what the God given code says. On the other hand, even though you don´t believe in a God your moral code could happen to be congruent with God´s code.

Of course, you may have your own codes. But do not expect others to agree with you.

Of course, you may ascribe you own moral code to the god of your preference. But do not expect others to agree with you (neither in that there is a God at all, nor in that your god concept describes God accurately, nor in your idea that you have gotten His moral code right.)

 

[juvenissun]

This circular reasoning makes me all dizzy.

Whether or not there is that which you consider a "true moral code" (i.e. a God-given code) doesn´t hinge on the beliefs of people if or not God exists. It hinges on God´s existence, and - not to forget - on the question if God has given out a moral code, to begin with.

Furthermore, even though you believe in the existence of God you may be wrong in your god concept and/or in your idea what the God given code says. On the other hand, even though you don´t believe in a God your moral code could happen to be congruent with God´s code.

Of course, you may ascribe you own moral code to the god of your preference. But do not expect others to agree with you (neither in that there is a God at all, nor in that your god concept describes God accurately, nor in your idea that you have gotten His moral code right.)

You are not addressing the issue. Of course, you can pick up any god and insist that what he said is not true moral. He is not your god, how could his words have any abiding force to you?

You are trying to deny the only correct answer to the OP. Of course, a humanist can easily deny anything with "moral" reasons. It is not hard at all. So I usually said, If I were an humanist, I can easily defend a moral action which is called murder.

So, what is moral to you? Let me tell you what that is: Moral is what the majority agreed upon. Or, the law says what the moral is. I can defend a murderer, but I may fail. Not because my argument is wrong, but because the jury "ruled" that I am wrong. That is what your moral means.

 

[juvenissun]

Re: Taoists and the problem of moralism:

Daoism does not talk anything about morality. 老子 (or 道德&#32147 chap 8 and 22 do not talk about morality.

Do not show off of your shallow understanding of Daoism before me.

 

[Huntun]

Do not show off of your shallow understanding of Daoism before me.

Most of it wasn't mine I was quoting the book " The Philosophy of Daodejing" by Hans Georg Muller. He is a professor and his area of expertise is Chinese Philosophy . His ideas seem to be taken seriously by some of the other well respected names in the field too. I would be surprised if his understanding was "shallower" than yours but I guess anything is possible.

Daoism does not talk anything about morality. 老子 (or 道德&#32147 chap 8 and 22 do not talk about morality.

It talks about not struggling. People can struggle over morality and questions of right and wrong but the Daoist sage doesn't do that. He doesn't struggle and thus no one can struggle against him.

 

[znr]

It's too bad so many people abuse God's grace this way. But, as you noted, sometimes they do. Those people make "Christians" look like opportunists. But there are a lot of good Christian people who understand that God hates it when people take advantage that way. Stealing things, or grace, isn't a good idea.

Something I read online recently:

When I was young I used to pray to God for a bicycle. Then when I got older I realized God doesn't work that way so instead, I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness.

I don't know why that came to mind when I read the OP but... Yeah. Theists are just as likely to do bad, they just get a "Get out of Hell free" card. They call it, Jesus.

 

[znr]

Winning souls left and right I see. The illumination bouncing off your golden crown is astounding.. blinding, really.

Daoism does not talk anything about morality. 老子 (or 道德&#32147 chap 8 and 22 do not talk about morality.

Do not show off of your shallow understanding of Daoism before me.

 

[Huntun]

Daoism does not talk anything about morality.

Zhuangzi even goes so far as to compare being instructed in moral thinking with bodily mutilation:

Xu You, said [to yi Erzi, the man approaching him] "What kind of assistance has Yao [the Confucian sage and model of morality] been giving you!"

Yi Erzi said: "Yao told me: "you must learn to practice benevolence and righteousness and to speak clearly about right and wrong."

"Then why come to see me?" said Xu You. "Yao has already tattooed you with benevolence and righteousness and cut off your nose with right and wrong. Now how do you expect to wander in any far away, carefree, and as-you-like-it paths?"

"That may be," said Yi Erzi. " But I would like, if I may to wander in a little corner of them."

"Impossible!" said Xu You. "Eyes that are blind have no way to tell the loveliness of faces and features, eyes with no pupils have no way to tell the beatuy of colored and embroiderd silk."​

The right and wrong distinction, righteousness, and benevolence,... sounds like a conversation related to the issue of morality to me.

 

[juvenissun]

Zhuangzi even goes so far as to compare being instructed in moral thinking with bodily mutilation:

Xu You, said [to yi Erzi, the man approaching him] "What kind of assistance has Yao [the Confucian sage and model of morality] been giving you!"

Yi Erzi said: "Yao told me: "you must learn to practice benevolence and righteousness and to speak clearly about right and wrong."

"Then why come to see me?" said Xu You. "Yao has already tattooed you with benevolence and righteousness and cut off your nose with right and wrong. Now how do you expect to wander in any far away, carefree, and as-you-like-it paths?"

"That may be," said Yi Erzi. " But I would like, if I may to wander in a little corner of them."

"Impossible!" said Xu You. "Eyes that are blind have no way to tell the loveliness of faces and features, eyes with no pupils have no way to tell the beatuy of colored and embroiderd silk."​

The right and wrong distinction, righteousness, and benevolence,... sounds like a conversation related to the issue of morality to me.

OK, 老子 now becomes 莊子. That would be a different story.

To be brief, the telling of right from wrong is NOT about morality. The telling of good from evil IS about morality.

So you know, good thing may still be evil in nature. Where is your standard of morality?

 

[juvenissun]

Winning souls left and right I see. The illumination bouncing off your golden crown is astounding.. blinding, really.

Say something about the issue, instead of about me. OK?

 

[juvenissun]

Winning souls left and right I see. The illumination bouncing off your golden crown is astounding.. blinding, really.

There are different strategy to win souls. To show force is one of them.

 

[Huntun]

To be brief, the telling of right from wrong is NOT about morality. The telling of good from evil IS about morality.

Are you sure about that?

mo·ral·i·ty
məˈralətē,mô-/
noun
noun: morality

1. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
   
   synonyms:ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality More"the morality of nuclear weapons"
   
   
   virtue, goodness, good behavior, righteousness, rectitude, uprightness;
   morals, principles, honesty, integrity, propriety, honor, justice, decency;
   ethics, standards/principles of behavior, mores, standards
   "a sharp decline in morality"
   • a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
     plural noun: moralities
     "a bourgeois morality"
   • the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
     "behind all the arguments lies the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"
   
   Also check out the synonyms for morality including
   
   Righteousness, justice, ideals, good habits

I'm pretty sure I was using the English term correctly. Sure, you have a right to come up with your own idiosyncratic definition for the term that is more limited in scope but it doesn't make sense to complain when someone is just using the standard dictionary definition of the term. Why would you expect me to know about your own special take on the meaning of the word and to abide by it?

 

[juvenissun]

Are you sure about that?

mo·ral·i·ty
məˈralətē,mô-/
noun
noun: morality

1. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
   
   synonyms:ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality More"the morality of nuclear weapons"
   
   
   virtue, goodness, good behavior, righteousness, rectitude, uprightness;
   morals, principles, honesty, integrity, propriety, honor, justice, decency;
   ethics, standards/principles of behavior, mores, standards
   "a sharp decline in morality"
   • a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
     plural noun: moralities
     "a bourgeois morality"
   • the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
     "behind all the arguments lies the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"
   
   Also check out the synonyms for morality including
   
   Righteousness, justice, ideals, good habits

I'm pretty sure I was using the English term correctly. Sure, you have a right to come up with your own idiosyncratic definition for the term that is more limited in scope but it doesn't make sense to complain when someone is just using the standard dictionary definition of the term. Why would you expect me to know about your own special take on the meaning of the word and to abide by it?

If a dictionary can clear the term up, then why are we still talking about it?

Is murder moral or not?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If a dictionary can clear the term up, then why are we still talking about it?

Is murder moral or not?

It depends...

 

[Huntun]

The term "murder" (as opposed to "killing") itself seems to imply a moral judgement about the said act right from the get go. It would be bit of a trick question.

I'm not Zhuangzi or Laozi though so my answer wouldn't necessarily imply much regarding their view. I think Hans was correct in his interpretation of the statement in the text regarding morality and the issue of right and wrong.

 

[juvenissun]

The term "murder" (as opposed to "killing") itself seems to imply a moral judgement about the said act right from the get go. It would be bit of a trick question.

I'm not Zhuangzi or Laozi though so my answer wouldn't necessarily imply much regarding their view. I think Hans was correct in his interpretation of the statement in the text regarding morality and the issue of right and wrong.

So, when we discuss morality, we do not know if murder is a moral act or not. That is great. That is very human.

Who or what is Hans?

 

[Huntun]

I didn't answer the question either way. I was saying that the term murder itself implies a moral judgment. No need to ask if you already have the answer in the wording of the question.

After thinking about it a little more I take that back though. It actually only implies the unlawful killing of a person and not necessarily the wrongful or immoral killing of a person. So it might be a legitimate question. My view on that issue is still irrelevant to the question of if that post represented a shallow understanding of Daoism or not though.

Personally I've been trying harder not to view the world through a moral lens all the time and to be less judgmental. I'm not going to indulge here.

RE: Hans he is the guy I quoted in the post you said represented a shallow understanding of Taoism.

 

[PsychoSarah]

There are different strategy to win souls. To show force is one of them.

That doesn't sound particularly benign.

 

[znr]

Absolutely no such deal. If you're allowed to do it (get personal), I am allowed to do it.

Say something about the issue, instead of about me. OK?