What does the moral code of idealism look like?

[Ed Konderla]

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.

Not familiar with the terminology so I'm at a disadvantage. When you say "relate with compassion" does that mean empathy or sympathy. I allow myself to feel empathy for many but almost never allow myself to feel sympathy. While sympathy may feel good it is a general rule completely ineffective. In my philosophy suffering many times is the greatest teacher. When I look back on my life my greatest lessons were from the times I suffered. In fact one philosophy teaches a true man of wisdom will search out suffering because of the lessons learned I'm not that wise. I have known people that managed to get through life with little or no suffering and I haven't been that impressed with the product.

[Eugene I]

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.

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

The spiritual dimension should definitely be part of our development, no question about that. But understanding the actual roots of the problems that the evolutional psychology teaches us can actually help a lot. This Paul's quote "the evil is right in me" and "I am a slave to sin" is very characteristic here in the sense that it shows the problem in understanding our moral issues from only religious-mythical perspective. Labeling the core issues of the human soul as "fall", "sin" and "evil" does much more harm than good, it leads to the sense of guilt with respect to oneself and sense of blame with respect to others. IMO this is a great disservice that monotheistic religions brought to humanity. However, if we look at these issues from the perspective of evolutionary psychology, we realize that there is nothing "sinful" or "evil" in these human behaviors, it is entirely natural. We don't blame dogs for being predators. These are simply psychological forces that need to be overcome, transformed and transcendent without exploiting the sense of guilt and blame that some traditional religions try to use as a tool to discourage bad behaviors. Exploiting such feelings of guilt and blame is actually very counterproductive psychologically, morally and spiritually, and that is a big issue I have with Christianity. We do not blame ourselves or others when we or others get sick, but we simply recognize the fact of sickness and make efforts to heal ourselves and seek help to do that. This is much healthier and productive approach IMO. So, personally I will never (again) subscribe to any spiritual tradition that tells me that our human instincts and deep motivations are "sinful". It is simply not true and very counterproductive. There is still no lack of spiritual traditions and practices that do not exploit the sense of guilt (such as Eastern or indigenous for example), so I'm all for spiritual traditions, but only if we take them critically, soberly and cautiously.

[Ed Konderla]

I am loving the course this discussion is taking. Doing the good thing is confusing and difficult. Many gringos, many who think they have a right to the good life will tell you not to give anything to Ecuadorians and especially campasinos. 30% of Ecuadorians are unemployed and 50% live in poverty. I have had a young guy working for me for 5 years and he has great values and identifies as Catholic. Many people out here only see a priest once or twice a year so I am not sure they know what that means. That is in no way a dig on the Catholic religion. He had a trashed out old car that constantly was a black hole for time and money. My wife and I knew if he had a descent car he would do nothing but good things with it. So we went out and bought a brand new off of the showroom floor a Chevy Sail and gave it to him to use as he saw fit. We maintained ownership out of concern that he might experience huge pressure internally and externally to sell it. This eliminates that. We pay for everything except gas and oil. I go weeks without even seeing the car. It has been 8 months and he has done exactly like we thought he would. It was a painful expenditure because we are by no means wealthy but the pressure you get from people to maintain the status quo because the status quo benefits them at the expense of others is amazing.

[AshvinP]

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.

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

The spiritual dimension should definitely be part of our development, no question about that. But understanding the actual roots of the problems that the evolutional psychology teaches us can actually help a lot. This Paul's quote "the evil is right in me" and "I am a slave to sin" is very characteristic here in the sense that it shows the problem in understanding our moral issues from only religious-mythical perspective. Labeling the core issues of the human soul as "fall", "sin" and "evil" does much more harm than good, it leads to the sense of guilt with respect to oneself and sense of blame with respect to others. IMO this is a great disservice that monotheistic religions brought to humanity. However, if we look at these issues from the perspective of evolutionary psychology, we realize that there is nothing "sinful" or "evil" in these human behaviors, it is entirely natural. We don't blame dogs for being predators. These are simply psychological forces that need to be overcome, transformed and transcendent without exploiting the sense of guilt and blame that some traditional religions try to use as a tool to discourage bad behaviors. Exploiting such feelings of guilt and blame is actually very counterproductive psychologically, morally and spiritually, and that is a big issue I have with Christianity. We do not blame ourselves or others when we or others get sick, but we simply recognize the fact of sickness and make efforts to heal ourselves and seek help to do that. This is much healthier and productive approach IMO. So, personally I will never (again) subscribe to any spiritual tradition that tells me that our human instincts and deep motivations are "sinful". It is simply not true and very counterproductive. There is still no lack of spiritual traditions and practices that do not exploit the sense of guilt (such as Eastern or indigenous for example), so I'm all for spiritual traditions, but only if we take them critically, soberly and cautiously.

The Greek word for "sin" is hamartia which means "loss due to missing the target" (as in an archer missing target with arrow). That is exactly what happens when we act at odds with our true nature. I agree that the modern (post-Reformation) Church has reversed the whole concept so that "natural" becomes "evil", but that is not how the early Church conceptualized it. And that reversal is once again traceable to metaphysical-spiritual divides, those of Descartes and Kant. So even the solution to overcoming that modern problem is metaphysical-spiritual.

Guilt and shame have their roles to play in our spiritual development - clearly it is helpful for one to experience some guilt when engaged in activity that makes them consistently miss the target. As Owen Barfield pointed out, the reason people experience so much guilt today is due to sin but a sin that they are not aware of - the aforementioned spiritual divides of the modern era. It is beckoning for them to change their mental habits, which is something they are responsible for doing because it is only something they can do for themselves.

Likewise it is the responsibility of us here, assuming we have also changed our mental habits, to inform them that the mental habits are the problem and not whatever external cause they are attributing it to, whether that is government, society, religion or a "nature" which they mostly view as existing outside of themselves. That is what Christianity is about at its core: Self-knowledge and the corresponding realization of one's own power to learn and change. We only fail to see that in the scripture because we are holding fast to the modern metaphysical paradigm which blinds it from our view.

[Ed Konderla]

The spiritual dimension should definitely be part of our development, no question about that. But understanding the actual roots of the problems that the evolutional psychology teaches us can actually help a lot. This Paul's quote "the evil is right in me" and "I am a slave to sin" is very characteristic here in the sense that it shows the problem in understanding our moral issues from only religious-mythical perspective.

Thought the whole comment was spot on.

[Eugene I]

The Greek word for "sin" is hamartia which means "loss due to missing the target" (as in an archer missing target with arrow). That is exactly what happens when we act at odds with our true nature. I agree that the modern (post-Reformation) Church has reversed the whole concept so that "natural" becomes "evil", but that is not how the early Church conceptualized it. And that reversal is once again traceable to metaphysical-spiritual divides, those of Descartes and Kant. So even the solution to overcoming that modern problem is metaphysical-spiritual.

Well, even if we disregard the references to "sin" and just take the Paul's phrase "the evil is right in me", we will be back to the same type of portraying the human issues as "evil" and invoking the sense of guilt/blame. And that's in Pauls letters and have nothing to do with Descartes.

Guilt and shame have their roles to play in our spiritual development - clearly it is helpful for one to experience some guilt when engaged in activity that makes them consistently miss the target. As Owen Barfield pointed out, the reason people experience so much guilt today is due to sin but a sin that they are not aware of - the aforementioned spiritual divides of the modern era. It is beckoning for them to change their mental habits, which is something they are responsible for doing because it is only something they can do for themselves.

I don't agree with that. The sense of guilt and blame are very counterproductive and psychologically damaging. There are much better ways to deal with our dysfunctional mental habits. No, I will not preach Buddhism again, but IMO even Buddhism uses much healthier approach and does not portray them as "evil" and invoke any sense of guilt/blame.

[AshvinP]

The Greek word for "sin" is hamartia which means "loss due to missing the target" (as in an archer missing target with arrow). That is exactly what happens when we act at odds with our true nature. I agree that the modern (post-Reformation) Church has reversed the whole concept so that "natural" becomes "evil", but that is not how the early Church conceptualized it. And that reversal is once again traceable to metaphysical-spiritual divides, those of Descartes and Kant. So even the solution to overcoming that modern problem is metaphysical-spiritual.

Well, even if we disregard the references to "sin" and just take the Paul's phrase "the evil is right in me", we will be back to the same type of portraying the human issues as "evil" and invoking the sense of guilt/blame. And that's in Pauls letters and have nothing to do with Descartes.

Guilt and shame have their roles to play in our spiritual development - clearly it is helpful for one to experience some guilt when engaged in activity that makes them consistently miss the target. As Owen Barfield pointed out, the reason people experience so much guilt today is due to sin but a sin that they are not aware of - the aforementioned spiritual divides of the modern era. It is beckoning for them to change their mental habits, which is something they are responsible for doing because it is only something they can do for themselves.

I don't agree with that. The sense of guilt and blame are very counterproductive and psychologically damaging. There are much better ways to deal with our dysfunctional mental habits. No, I will not preach Buddhism again, but IMO even Buddhism uses much healthier approach and does not portray them as "evil" and invoke any sense of guilt/blame.

Where else is the "evil" if not in you? If you are arguing that "evil" per se does not exist, then I would respond that is a very naïve view of the world.

How can you know your mental habits are "dysfunctional" if not from some sort of emotional response which feeds back to your cognition? Perhaps you will claim mere "displeasure" is sufficient, in which case I would respond we are splitting hairs and displeasure is not significantly different from "guilt", or the forms of displeasure which are significantly different are not sufficient.

[Eugene I]

Where else is the "evil" if not in you? If you are arguing that "evil" per se does not exist, then I would respond that is a very naïve view of the world.

How can you know your mental habits are "dysfunctional" if not from some sort of emotional response which feeds back to your cognition? Perhaps you will claim mere "displeasure" is sufficient, in which case I would respond we are splitting hairs and displeasure is not significantly different from "guilt", or the forms of displeasure which are significantly different are not sufficient.

When we are sick we feel displeasure and understand that we need to take measures for healing to avoid further displeasures, and that is quite sufficient for effective healing. Blaming ourselves for being sick only adds unnecessary stress. When we do wrong to others, it is enough to be compassionate, to understand the damage we did and try to rectify it. Blaming ourselves only does psychological damage to both ourselves and our relationships with people.

The feelings of guilt, blame and evil were again the result of evolution and served in humanoids as natural emotional tool for behavioral corrections. And, lacking enough intelligence, they worked well for them. But at our current level of development they became counter-productive as most other inherited instincts. Especially the senses of blame and evil are problematic. You can trace virtually every war and conflict in the history of the society to the feelings of blame and evil. We portray people that did something damaging to us (or just do something differently not according to our views) as "evil" and start blaming them, and once we do that, the natural instincts "endorse" us to act violently towards them. It was enough to portray Americans as "evil infidels" by Moslem extremists to ruin New York towers with thousands of people died. So, I would argue that the evolutionary developed sense of evil and the cognitive archetypes that we derived from it are very damaging and dysfunctional and belong to the list of those dysfunctional mental habits that we need to address.

[AshvinP]

Where else is the "evil" if not in you? If you are arguing that "evil" per se does not exist, then I would respond that is a very naïve view of the world.

How can you know your mental habits are "dysfunctional" if not from some sort of emotional response which feeds back to your cognition? Perhaps you will claim mere "displeasure" is sufficient, in which case I would respond we are splitting hairs and displeasure is not significantly different from "guilt", or the forms of displeasure which are significantly different are not sufficient.

When we are sick we feel displeasure and understand that we need to take measures for healing to avoid further displeasures, and that is quite sufficient for effective healing. Blaming ourselves for being sick only adds unnecessary stress. When we do wrong to others, it is enough to be compassionate, to understand the damage we did and try to rectify it. Blaming ourselves only does psychological damage to both ourselves and our relationships with people.

The feelings of guilt, blame and evil were again the result of evolution and served in humanoids as natural emotional tool for behavioral corrections. And, lacking enough intelligence, they worked well for them. But at our current level of development they became counter-productive as most other inherited instincts. Especially the senses of blame and evil are problematic. You can trace virtually every war and conflict in the history of the society to the feelings of blame and evil. We portray people that did something damaging to us (or just do something differently not according to our views) as "evil" and start blaming them, and once we do that, the natural instincts "endorse" us to act violently towards them. So, I would argue that the evolutionary developed sense of evil and the cognitive archetypes that we derived from it are very damaging and dysfunctional and belong to the list of those dysfunctional mental habits that we need to address.

I disagree. Strongly. There is a worrying and unwarranted arrogance and pride in thinking our localized consciousness is more wise than the archetypal forces which selected for our corporeal survival over vast timespans simply because we live in a later age.

Simply knowing we are sick is not sufficient to adjust our behavior properly if it was that behavior which made us sick. In fact I would claim that is the precise purpose of guilt - to distinguish to us what sickness results from "external" causes and what results from our own mental habits which can be modified with sustained effort.

Without that, we may actually be justified in attributing all pathology and alienation to external causes and that is when resentmemt and desires for revenge truly express themselves in the most harmful ways, as we can see quite clearly in the modern world today. People feel guilty but cannot identify the source within so they project it outwards onto everything but themselves.

[AshvinP]

Where else is the "evil" if not in you? If you are arguing that "evil" per se does not exist, then I would respond that is a very naïve view of the world.

How can you know your mental habits are "dysfunctional" if not from some sort of emotional response which feeds back to your cognition? Perhaps you will claim mere "displeasure" is sufficient, in which case I would respond we are splitting hairs and displeasure is not significantly different from "guilt", or the forms of displeasure which are significantly different are not sufficient.

When we are sick we feel displeasure and understand that we need to take measures for healing to avoid further displeasures, and that is quite sufficient for effective healing. Blaming ourselves for being sick only adds unnecessary stress. When we do wrong to others, it is enough to be compassionate, to understand the damage we did and try to rectify it. Blaming ourselves only does psychological damage to both ourselves and our relationships with people.

The feelings of guilt, blame and evil were again the result of evolution and served in humanoids as natural emotional tool for behavioral corrections. And, lacking enough intelligence, they worked well for them. But at our current level of development they became counter-productive as most other inherited instincts. Especially the senses of blame and evil are problematic. You can trace virtually every war and conflict in the history of the society to the feelings of blame and evil. We portray people that did something damaging to us (or just do something differently not according to our views) as "evil" and start blaming them, and once we do that, the natural instincts "endorse" us to act violently towards them. So, I would argue that the evolutionary developed sense of evil and the cognitive archetypes that we derived from it are very damaging and dysfunctional and belong to the list of those dysfunctional mental habits that we need to address.

I disagree. Strongly. There is a worrying and unwarranted arrogance and pride in thinking our localized consciousness is more wise than the archetypal forces which selected for our corporeal survival over vast timespans simply because we live in a later age.

Simply knowing we are sick is not sufficient to adjust our behavior properly if it was that behavior which made us sick. In fact I would claim that is the precise purpose of guilt - to distinguish to us what sickness results from "external" causes and what results from our own mental habits which can be modified with sustained effort.

Without that, we may actually be justified in attributing all pathology and alienation to external causes and that is when resentmemt and desires for revenge truly express themselves in the most harmful ways, as we can see quite clearly in the modern world today. People feel guilty but cannot identify the source within so they project it outwards onto everything but themselves.

There is another worrying aspect we should pay attention to. On the Kant thread we agreed that the realm of thinking-ideation is shared. But there is a difference bwtween mere intellectual assent and taking it more serioisly. How does that fit with the idea that the wisdom of Buddha is not reflected in the Christian scriptures, Old and New Testaments? By separating them in that way we are simply manifesting our faith in the Kantian divide in another form.