What does the moral code of idealism look like?

[Ed Konderla]

So what does it look like?
Is it a world with no police or armies?
Is it a world where nobody's travel is restricted including through the front door of you house?
Is it a world where a survey is done and once we know who is the poorest of the poor that level should be mandated to all?
Is it a world where powerful politicians and the ultra rich like Bill Gates dictate how we live and no one tells them how to live?

I see many times stated or implied that idealism will make a better world than materialism. Although I fully accept idealism I have yet to see a way it produces a plan of action to take on the world's challenges. Maybe it is supposed to function as a trickle up code of ethics that once some critical mass of followers is reached the rest of society will switch over to it. I would not have a problem with that if it weren't for the timeline I see. It's like in the middle of the worst wild fires in California the decision was made to either wait for the rain or for it to burn itself out. Both legitimate decisions if one can live with the consequences.

[Ben Iscatus]

IMHO, Idealism cannot supply a moral code. But it can supply a mindset. If you are not nihilistic, you feel better about yourself. If you are not consumer-driven (believing stuff is all there is), the world is automatically a better place )

[Ed Konderla]

I don't disagree however proponents of idealism imply that materialism is the root of all evil and is the primary source of the mindset of consumerism.
They also start foundations stating their goal is to fight the evils of materialism with the source of their moral authority being concepts like idealism. While it sounds good I can't see the path forward unless we are looking at getting results sometime in the next 2000 years.

[Eugene I]

The real issue with humans is that deep in our psychology we are driven by ancient survival mechanisms that were developed by natural selection and which we inherit genetically (plus they also get reinforced culturally when we grow up in the society), such as the drive to personally survive, get as much as possible food and wealth, get the highest social status in the herd and procreate and spread the genes. Getting the highest social status in the power hierarchy (by conquering the competitors) and getting the biggest wealth increased the chances of surviving and spreading the genes and was evolutionary advantageous. There is nothing wrong with it, these mechanisms worked perfectly well for animals and humanoids, and thank to them they brought humans up to the level of high consciousness, technology and civilization development. The problem is that at the civilization stage these mechanisms became totally counter-productive and actually destructive. They now impede our development instead of helping it. All our problems on the individual, social and political levels can be traced to these ancient survival mechanisms that subconsciously drive most humans to accumulate as much wealth as possible with no regard to the means and costs of such accumulation, to gain as much power and social status as possible by conquering competitors by all possible means, both on individual and group levels, and to mate and spread the genes as much as possible. Most people have no clue why they are doing that, they are simply unconsciously driven by these ancient instinctive motivations without questioning them. Yet, we humans have means and tools of high-level cognition and volition to change this situation, recognize and keep these mechanisms under control. However, this can only be done on the individual level. Simply changing social systems or political institutions, philosophies, slogans or social ideologies may make some positive difference but does not help substantially (as humans learned from social experiments like communism). It's like taking aspirin and doing fitness when you have cancer - it may look like you are getting better, but does not address the root problem at all. Robert Wright wrote a few good books on this subject. So, speaking of idealism, IMO it may help to some extent, but it would only be scratching the surface and would be insufficient to change the situation significantly on the global level even if the majority of population would subscribe to idealism. We can look at the history of Christian civilization which was predominantly idealistic, yet didn't result in resolving these problems on the global level (even though there were many examples of outstanding individuals that were able to transcend them). But granted, abandoning religion and turning to bare materialism over the last centuries only made things worse. So, don't get me wrong, switching from materialism to idealism on the mass scale would definitely be a positive step ahead, but by far not enough to make substantial difference in resolving the problems that you mentioned. Moral codes only work as good as to the extent that each individual in the society would be entirely committed to them in the practical, social and personal life, otherwise they are simply proclamations.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Speaking from the experience of this psyche, I can no longer look into the gaze of another sentient being and not feel the presence of the very same ipseity, the one 'I' that looks out from everyOne, the essence of which is That which supersedes all else, however distorted in may be by the veils of suffering prone maya, and the apparency of separation. As such, to understand them or relate to them in any way other than with compassion, just simply feels like adding to, or amplifying the suffering, from which this psyche can't be extricated. From there, it just seems to follow that, eventually, what goes around comes around, and if indeed a psyche is eternal, then less suffering seems the way to go ... at least in this experience.

[Ed Konderla]

All very valid points. As a boss I had in my past would say "The things that make you so good are the same things that make you so bad". I do believe that concepts like Christianity have a very important roll to play as we deal with the coming challenges and it all boils down to the individual. There is no way a Christian that truly follows the words of Christ can be a person that worships "stuff" yet you see it every day. So how Christianity is presented is what causes me heartburn. There is too much stick and not enough carrot. Idealism removes the fear factor and you are pretty much left with either being very altruistic or an asshole. It appears the outcome is the same. Idealism does invite one to look beyond the horizon and may be do the right thing for the right reason.

[Eugene I]

Subscribing to idealism honestly and wholeheartedly on the experiential/existential level can definitely make a person less selfish, more loving and compassionate and less focused on "material" aspects, no question about that. The question is, if idealism does get adopted culturally as a common paradigm, how many people would not simply agree with it intellectually as a philosophical paradigm, but adopt it and subscribe to it practically, wholeheartedly and honestly with a full commitment to it?

[Soul_of_Shu]

Subscribing to idealism honestly and wholeheartedly on the experiential/existential level can definitely make a person less selfish, more loving and compassionate and less focused on "material" aspects, no question about that. The question is, if idealism does get adopted culturally as a common paradigm, how many people would not simply agree with it intellectually as a philosophical paradigm, but adopt it and subscribe to it practically, wholeheartedly and honestly with a full commitment to it?

For sure, there is an experiential, 'heartfelt' component to grokking this that goes far deeper than just intellectually accepting it. But if one concurs with Bernardo that the intellect can be the 'bouncer' of the heart, then perhaps it can open or close the door to a deeper experiential component, even as in my own case it was the other way around, or so it seems. Perhaps I was in some way psychologically predisposed to certain experiences, given that even in my early days at school, whatever I was being educated to buy into felt like a sorry sham, as I gazed wistfully out the window daydreaming of freely exploring other possibilities.

[Eugene I]

Oh, I agree, there is no chance of accepting idealism wholeheartedly without accepting it intellectually.

[AshvinP]

The real issue with humans is that deep in our psychology we are driven by ancient survival mechanisms that were developed by natural selection and which we inherit genetically (plus they also get reinforced culturally when we grow up in the society), such as the drive to personally survive, get as much as possible food and wealth, get the highest social status in the herd and procreate and spread the genes. Getting the highest social status in the power hierarchy (by conquering the competitors) and getting the biggest wealth increased the chances of surviving and spreading the genes and was evolutionary advantageous. There is nothing wrong with it, these mechanisms worked perfectly well for animals and humanoids, and thank to them they brought humans up to the level of high consciousness, technology and civilization development. The problem is that at the civilization stage these mechanisms became totally counter-productive and actually destructive. They now impede our development instead of helping it. All our problems on the individual, social and political levels can be traced to these ancient survival mechanisms that subconsciously drive most humans to accumulate as much wealth as possible with no regard to the means and costs of such accumulation, to gain as much power and social status as possible by conquering competitors by all possible means, both on individual and group levels, and to mate and spread the genes as much as possible. Most people have no clue why they are doing that, they are simply unconsciously driven by these ancient instinctive motivations without questioning them. Yet, we humans have means and tools of high-level cognition and volition to change this situation, recognize and keep these mechanisms under control. However, this can only be done on the individual level. Simply changing social systems or political institutions, philosophies, slogans or social ideologies may make some positive difference but does not help substantially (as humans learned from social experiments like communism). It's like taking aspirin and doing fitness when you have cancer - it may look like you are getting better, but does not address the root problem at all. Robert Wright wrote a few good books on this subject. So, speaking of idealism, IMO it may help to some extent, but it would only be scratching the surface and would be insufficient to change the situation significantly on the global level even if the majority of population would subscribe to idealism. We can look at the history of Christian civilization which was predominantly idealistic, yet didn't result in resolving these problems on the global level (even though there were many examples of outstanding individuals that were able to transcend them). But granted, abandoning religion and turning to bare materialism over the last centuries only made things worse. So, don't get me wrong, switching from materialism to idealism on the mass scale would definitely be a positive step ahead, but by far not enough to make substantial difference in resolving the problems that you mentioned. Moral codes only work as good as to the extent that each individual in the society would be entirely committed to them in the practical, social and personal life, otherwise they are simply proclamations.

We need to recognize these "moral issues" as metaphysical-spiritual ones, not as a mere result of genetics and cultural development. When saying we must learn to go against the Reality which selected for the survival of genes, we are effectively setting a standard of conduct which can never be met nor should we want to meet. It is a dead-end road to nihilism. I do agree with the bolded statement though - Self-knowledge at the individual level is what allows us to open up the possibility of bringing our motivations, feelings and thinking into harmonious alignment, i.e. working together for a common goal of respect and responsibility towards others and towards the world. The spirits of evolution have wisely kept that possibility within us.

Understanding idealism and taking it seriously is a good start, as it helps overcome the habits of mind which structure our experience into inner vs. outer, mind vs. matter, etc. It must be understood at a very practical level and not merely academically. I am by no means an expert on the various intellectual and meditative exercises which can be employed to that end, but they are certainly available to every individual. We are not seeking "moral codes" to obey but our true spiritual nature which allows us to align our desires with what is also good, i.e. spiritual freedom.

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do. But what I hate, I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I admit that the law is good. 17In that case, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh; for I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For I do not do the good I want to do. Instead, I keep on doing the evil I do not want to do. 20And if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21So this is the principle I have discovered: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God’s law. 23But I see another law at work in my body, warring against the law of my mind and holding me captive to the law of sin that dwells within me.
-Romans 7