A basis for natural morality in idealism

[Rijumati]

In Bernardo’s interview with Curt Jaimungal he stated that morality is a purely social phenomenon, necessary for us to live together effectively, but having no archetypal basis. I think that idealism does imply a natural basis for morality and one is selling it short by not elucidating that. Here is the argument, please forgive me if I don’t get all the philosophical terminology correct:

Every action of the dissociated individual or alter takes place in mind at large and so it has some, perhaps tiny, effect on the whole. It is clear that meta-cognition gives rise to new possibilities within mind at large. In particular the meta-cognitive alter can be aware of the consequences of his actions and adapt behaviour according to expected outcomes. An alter with meta-cognition has the remarkable ability to develop or mould aspects of his conscious experience by deliberately building reinforcing patterns or habits. For instance an action based in hatred tends to lead to separation and retaliation from other alters, whereas one based in love tends to lead to connection and sympathy from other alters. This has a direct effect on the individual alter, affecting their wellbeing or suffering. This is an empirical truth based on seeing how the consequences of actions unfold. Only meta-cognitive alters have the ability to adapt behaviour based on this understanding, so that is why the world of most animals is amoral, red in tooth and claw. Meta-cognitive alters can become aware of this pattern or archetype within mind at large and take advantage of it to gain relief from suffering for themselves and others. Hence morality has a natural basis within mind at large. This pattern or archetype is what Buddhism calls the law of karma.

[Shaibei]

I do not know about philosophical arguments but I do not need such to feel that my conscience is not a fiction of my imagination. In any case I would not sacrifice much for values ​​that are mere fiction.
As for spiritual traditions it is interesting that in Kabbalah too morality and values ​​are archetypes of the general structure of the cosmos

[SanteriSatama]

In Bernardo’s interview with Curt Jaimungal he stated that morality is a purely social phenomenon, necessary for us to live together effectively, but having no archetypal basis. I think that idealism does imply a natural basis for morality and one is selling it short by not elucidating that. Here is the argument, please forgive me if I don’t get all the philosophical terminology correct:

Every action of the dissociated individual or alter takes place in mind at large and so it has some, perhaps tiny, effect on the whole. It is clear that meta-cognition gives rise to new possibilities within mind at large. In particular the meta-cognitive alter can be aware of the consequences of his actions and adapt behaviour according to expected outcomes. An alter with meta-cognition has the remarkable ability to develop or mould aspects of his conscious experience by deliberately building reinforcing patterns or habits. For instance an action based in hatred tends to lead to separation and retaliation from other alters, whereas one based in love tends to lead to connection and sympathy from other alters. This has a direct effect on the individual alter, affecting their wellbeing or suffering. This is an empirical truth based on seeing how the consequences of actions unfold. Only meta-cognitive alters have the ability to adapt behaviour based on this understanding, so that is why the world of most animals is amoral, red in tooth and claw. Meta-cognitive alters can become aware of this pattern or archetype within mind at large and take advantage of it to gain relief from suffering for themselves and others. Hence morality has a natural basis within mind at large. This pattern or archetype is what Buddhism calls the law of karma.

Words 'morals' and 'ethics', respectively, come from Latin and Greek words meaning originally 'local custom'. In that sense, they are purely social.

The deeper feels of these concepts do have their analogues and ontology in the spiritual realms, and various form of the Golden/Silver rule as well as Self-correcting principle of science are deeply archetypal. Transformative spiritual experiences tend to come with archetypal level ethical teaching and empirical conditioning, which as a rule of thumb, advice and restrict what not to do, but open more possibilities of creativity. An interesting hypothesis, going back to Anaximander etc., is that alters and their experiences is how generative orders of archetypal ethical theories test and valuate each other. This algorithmic archetype of various ethically generative algorithms is reflected in the empirical and self-correcting ideals of scientific process.

From my animistic point of view of perspectival multinaturalism, I can't agree that other animals etc. forms of life are amoral either in their own perspective to social norms and habits, or their perspective to spiritual ethics. In animistic spiritual ethics, to deny the core ethics of other life forms would be spiritually unethical. .

[AshvinP]

In Bernardo’s interview with Curt Jaimungal he stated that morality is a purely social phenomenon, necessary for us to live together effectively, but having no archetypal basis. I think that idealism does imply a natural basis for morality and one is selling it short by not elucidating that. Here is the argument, please forgive me if I don’t get all the philosophical terminology correct:

Every action of the dissociated individual or alter takes place in mind at large and so it has some, perhaps tiny, effect on the whole. It is clear that meta-cognition gives rise to new possibilities within mind at large. In particular the meta-cognitive alter can be aware of the consequences of his actions and adapt behaviour according to expected outcomes. An alter with meta-cognition has the remarkable ability to develop or mould aspects of his conscious experience by deliberately building reinforcing patterns or habits. For instance an action based in hatred tends to lead to separation and retaliation from other alters, whereas one based in love tends to lead to connection and sympathy from other alters. This has a direct effect on the individual alter, affecting their wellbeing or suffering. This is an empirical truth based on seeing how the consequences of actions unfold. Only meta-cognitive alters have the ability to adapt behaviour based on this understanding, so that is why the world of most animals is amoral, red in tooth and claw. Meta-cognitive alters can become aware of this pattern or archetype within mind at large and take advantage of it to gain relief from suffering for themselves and others. Hence morality has a natural basis within mind at large. This pattern or archetype is what Buddhism calls the law of karma.

A utilitarian theory of morality will never be adequate at a societal level IMO, or at least not anytime soon. I am all for factoring in the natural consequences of our actions, i.e. suffering or well-being, if we pay close attention to those natural consequences and specify them adequately, but currently such a calculation for the collective will never exhaustively capture that which draws us closer to or pushes us further from our spiritual essence. There are simply too many missing pieces from our maps of the moral landscape. For that reason, BK's rather pragmatic perspective on a 'theory' of morality makes the most sense, which naturally focuses on the individual as the primary locus of action.