|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 22, 2022 22:54:12 GMT -5
Since self awareness emerged in the universe, 'people' (whatever that is) have faced the dilemma of what is the right and what is wrong. This has required people to suspend self-gratification with respect to more profound ideals that have little to no regard for personal desires. The moral drive, then, is not for 'what I want', but 'what is for the best'?
This notion has been artificially categorised as right vs wrong, or the even more distorted, good vs. evil. The opposed duality arises because people want to be right. In some simple cases it applies - it's clearly wrong to kill the postman - but ethics barely apply to simple, obvious things. Ethics is only meaningful when between a rock and a hard place.
So far I have framed morality as an individual construct, but as my opening sentence refers to 'people' and not 'a person', it doesn't follow that any one person can produce beneficial and harmless outcomes alone. Indeed no person on their own, no matter how wise, can act in ways that are optimally beneficial or harmless. Optimal outcomes can only be achieved collectively as the following graphic illustrates:
I hope you can see here how no one has to die. If we had individual rules of utilitarianism, then 2 people will be killed. Ironically, each party must pull the lever that will kill 5 people (not 1), in order that none shall die. The issue here of course is, person A does not know what person B will do. Both parties must trust that the other recognises the dilemma and does what is for the best in the collective sense. The problem is obvious: people are private actors, and as such, necessarily private moralists.
I don't know where to go next from here. I hope you like trolley car twist, but enough from me, and over to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by sree on Oct 23, 2022 9:42:59 GMT -5
I cannot wrap my head around the trolley problem as presented by you, lolly. Basically, the moral question you are posing is whether or not a decision should be made by you to kill off a few people to save mankind, or do nothing and watch humanity get decimated leaving you and a few unharmed. This is a decision you make alone because you are not aware of my existence. Obviously, you would not pull that lever and just watch that trolley kill the 5 guys. If you know of my existence, the scenario changes. Now, you and I can cooperate to put most of humanity at risk of annihilation to avert a disaster for all. In this case, we would definitely pull our levers.
In either case, there is no moral dilemma. Am I wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 23, 2022 12:35:46 GMT -5
The setup is not clear. You say the two cannot communicate with each other. But as presented, they can see each other, it appears they are even looking at each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 23, 2022 18:46:58 GMT -5
The setup is not clear. You say the two cannot communicate with each other. But as presented, they can see each other, it appears they are even looking at each other. If they could communicate then there would be no dilemma, in which case the picture serves no purpose whatsoever. We must assume the picture serves the purpose of presenting a dilemma, which means it would have to imply that the lever pullers are aware of the situation, but cannot anticipate what the other individual will do.
If they both pull the lever such that the trolleys go toward the 5 people, the trolleys will collide where the tracks cross and not continue on to kill the people. This is only possible if they mutually trust that the the other will see the optimal outcome and work in tandum. The question is mutually, will the other person do 'what is for the best'?
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 23, 2022 18:58:46 GMT -5
The setup is not clear. You say the two cannot communicate with each other. But as presented, they can see each other, it appears they are even looking at each other. If they could communicate then there would be no dilemma, in which case the picture serves no purpose whatsoever. We must assume the picture serves the purpose of presenting a dilemma, which means it would have to imply that the lever pullers are aware of the situation, but cannot anticipate what the other individual will do. If they both pull the lever such that the trolleys go toward the 5 people, the trolleys will collide where the tracks cross and not continue on to kill the people. This is only possible if they mutually trust that the the other will see the optimal outcome and work in tandum. The question is mutually, will the other person do 'what is for the best'?
Did you know that they used a simplified version of this in a reality dating show?  They filmed a series of episodes where people formed romantic couples from a group with weekly eliminations, etc .. then at the end they each had to decide whether they would split a sum of money. The individuals in each couple made a choice in secret, with, of course, four possible outcomes: (split, split) - they split (keep, keep) - they got nothing the greedy individual kept in the other two outcomes nothing is sacred these days  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 24, 2022 16:58:22 GMT -5
The setup is not clear. You say the two cannot communicate with each other. But as presented, they can see each other, it appears they are even looking at each other. If they could communicate then there would be no dilemma, in which case the picture serves no purpose whatsoever. We must assume the picture serves the purpose of presenting a dilemma, which means it would have to imply that the lever pullers are aware of the situation, but cannot anticipate what the other individual will do. If they both pull the lever such that the trolleys go toward the 5 people, the trolleys will collide where the tracks cross and not continue on to kill the people. This is only possible if they mutually trust that the the other will see the optimal outcome and work in tandum. The question is mutually, will the other person do 'what is for the best'?
Yea, I got what it was pointing to. It's a kind of reverse of the Prisoner's dilemma, or a certain take on it. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 16, 2022 3:55:48 GMT -5
When I read sree's post in another thread about 9 year olds watching porn, I felt a twang in my moral fibres. That is bad on a number of levels.
Then I came across Peter's thread about money, which I think comes down to principles of generosity and appreciation, 'good-will', and the underlying metta, which despite our aversions and contention, is the wish that all living beings be happy.
I probably feel ill-will at least 3 times a day. Someone always ticks me off somehow. Sometimes I hate people at first sight for no reason, and just seeth with irrational ill-will.
Is morality at the level of action or at the level of intent? I say it's at the level of intent - where good-will or ill-will reside.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 16, 2022 16:44:47 GMT -5
When I read sree's post in another thread about 9 year olds watching porn, I felt a twang in my moral fibres. That is bad on a number of levels. Then I came across Peter's thread about money, which I think comes down to principles of generosity and appreciation, 'good-will', and the underlying metta, which despite our aversions and contention, is the wish that all living beings be happy. I probably feel ill-will at least 3 times a day. Someone always ticks me off somehow. Sometimes I hate people at first sight for no reason, and just seeth with irrational ill-will. Is morality at the level of action or at the level of intent? I say it's at the level of intent - where good-will or ill-will reside. I believe that " morality" is relative, so it can't be a defining criteria for all. Surely, you should define your own morality, not unquestioningly embrace others', and follow yours no matter what others say. As you develop, your definition of morality it is likely to change, even if only getting more clear, more detailed. Regarding anger, hate ... The way I understand reality, your anger and hate will filter your future experiences so that you'll have more reasons to feel anger, hate, eventually those degenerating into fear, worse and worse. This is something nobody wants for themselves, so one way is to focus on what you want not on what you don't want (typical examples: love peace, don't hate war! desire to be healthy, not not to be sick anymore!). Also, look more toward the future than toward the past, and think in terms of what you can and should do instead of what others do or should do. There is no higher power that judges your intentions and actions. Your own thoughts materialize into what you experience. You can " intend well" in a constructive way only in as much as you are in tune with the nature of reality. Adopting some kind of moral code, yours or others', that is not aligned with the nature of reality won't benefit your personality. I understand that you might disagree, and develop some negative-will toward me, but that wouldn't affect me at all, but would negatively affect only you. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 17, 2022 3:35:54 GMT -5
I think I'm normal and everyone without exception experiences ill-will similar to what I described, but if I site morality at the level of intent, I can't prescribe a moral code because intent is private. That does not rule out social ethics as we can agree that malicious intent would impel obviously harmful activity like murder etc etc etc. I'm just saying the desire to kill someone is the site of morality, and the act of doing so is merely consequential. However, I always restrain myself when I'm impelled to kill the noisy dog next door, so I think it's better to recognise ill-will for what it is so that you refrain from acting upon it.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 17, 2022 6:58:46 GMT -5
I think I'm normal and everyone without exception experiences ill-will similar to what I described, but if I site morality at the level of intent, I can't prescribe a moral code because intent is private. That does not rule out social ethics as we can agree that malicious intent would impel obviously harmful activity like murder etc etc etc. I'm just saying the desire to kill someone is the site of morality, and the act of doing so is merely consequential. However, I always restrain myself when I'm impelled to kill the noisy dog next door, so I think it's better to recognise ill-will for what it is so that you refrain from acting upon it. Can you say more about what you consider to be 'ill-will'? Does the internal movement to confront or challenge someone on their behaviour or ideas necessitate a sense of 'ill-will' towards them? To be clear, I'm not opposed to the idea that I experience ill-will, I'm just wanting to understand where you draw the lines with it. Perhaps, as you say, we all experience ill-will, but maybe it's those first few moments of the experience that determines how deep and nasty it gets. When something arises within me that I recognize quickly to be unpleasant, I think I'm fairly conditioned to ask myself....'what is useful (and wise) to do with this? Is this something to be internally managed, or is there some external action to be taken?' (Just noticing that 'ill-will' is one of those words, where if you say it enough, it starts to seem very funny  ) |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 17, 2022 14:39:54 GMT -5
I think I'm normal and everyone without exception experiences ill-will similar to what I described, but if I site morality at the level of intent, I can't prescribe a moral code because intent is private. That does not rule out social ethics as we can agree that malicious intent would impel obviously harmful activity like murder etc etc etc. I'm just saying the desire to kill someone is the site of morality, and the act of doing so is merely consequential. However, I always restrain myself when I'm impelled to kill the noisy dog next door, so I think it's better to recognise ill-will for what it is so that you refrain from acting upon it. Quick note: if you want to stop a neighbor's dog from barking, there are some cheap products on the market that will do the job. They send out a high-frequency signal that dogs can hear and don't like that humans cannot hear. I carry a $19 hand-unit with me when I go walking. Two giant dogs charged me one day, and I didn't know whether they were friendly or not. I pointed the gadget at them, pushed the button, and it was like they ran into a rock wall! It stopped them dead in their tracks. It also stopped a neighbor's dog from barking. I zapped him several times when he was barking and when he sees me now, he puts his tail between his legs and slinks to the rear of his owner's home. I bought one for our mail carrier, and she told me that it's a life saver. I don't understand why UPS, FED EX, and mail carriers aren't issued these things by their employers. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 17, 2022 22:39:05 GMT -5
I think I'm normal and everyone without exception experiences ill-will similar to what I described, but if I site morality at the level of intent, I can't prescribe a moral code because intent is private. That does not rule out social ethics as we can agree that malicious intent would impel obviously harmful activity like murder etc etc etc. I'm just saying the desire to kill someone is the site of morality, and the act of doing so is merely consequential. However, I always restrain myself when I'm impelled to kill the noisy dog next door, so I think it's better to recognise ill-will for what it is so that you refrain from acting upon it. Can you say more about what you consider to be 'ill-will'? Does the internal movement to confront or challenge someone on their behaviour or ideas necessitate a sense of 'ill-will' towards them? To be clear, I'm not opposed to the idea that I experience ill-will, I'm just wanting to understand where you draw the lines with it. Perhaps, as you say, we all experience ill-will, but maybe it's those first few moments of the experience that determines how deep and nasty it gets. When something arises within me that I recognize quickly to be unpleasant, I think I'm fairly conditioned to ask myself....'what is useful (and wise) to do with this? Is this something to be internally managed, or is there some external action to be taken?' (Just noticing that 'ill-will' is one of those words, where if you say it enough, it starts to seem very funny ) Ill will is not predetermined. It's strictly a reactive tendency, and in that sense it is not actually will at all. It works in a way we don't expect because we are captivated by the periphery of senses, the sights mostly, but sounds (dog barking), smells/taste, thoughts as well, and are not particularly attuned to how all these culminate in the production of sensations we can feel. The Buddhists say, and I agree with them, that all the reactive tendencies arise from feelings: "From feelings craving arises".
Yes, when the dog barks I blame that bloody dog, but actually, my ill-will is directed as an aversion toward feelings in my own body, and is in that sense, self-hatred. The dog barks for a long time, wakes me up, and the din hits the auditory nerves and produces unpleasant vibrations through the rest of the nervous system. My adverse reactivity toward that sensation generates ill-will. That ill-will (psychological reaction) in turn affects new unpleasant feelings throughout the nervous system, to which I react adversely, amplifying my misdirected acrimony toward that bloody animal next door.
Most of us, especially on a spiritual forum, and a 'teachers' forum no less, are hesitant to admit we have a tendency to generate ill-will, but every day we are doing it, if someone cuts us off, a telemarketer at dinnertime or someone on Twitter is WRONG! lol, but I think if we can go to the source of what are actually reacting to, then at least the aversion can be properly directed, instead of killing the damn dog.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 18, 2022 3:12:42 GMT -5
Can you say more about what you consider to be 'ill-will'? Does the internal movement to confront or challenge someone on their behaviour or ideas necessitate a sense of 'ill-will' towards them? To be clear, I'm not opposed to the idea that I experience ill-will, I'm just wanting to understand where you draw the lines with it. Perhaps, as you say, we all experience ill-will, but maybe it's those first few moments of the experience that determines how deep and nasty it gets. When something arises within me that I recognize quickly to be unpleasant, I think I'm fairly conditioned to ask myself....'what is useful (and wise) to do with this? Is this something to be internally managed, or is there some external action to be taken?' (Just noticing that 'ill-will' is one of those words, where if you say it enough, it starts to seem very funny ) Ill will is not predetermined. It's strictly a reactive tendency, and in that sense it is not actually will at all. It works in a way we don't expect because we are captivated by the periphery of senses, the sights mostly, but sounds (dog barking), smells/taste, thoughts as well, and are not particularly attuned to how all these culminate in the production of sensations we can feel. The Buddhists say, and I agree with them, that all the reactive tendencies arise from feelings: "From feelings craving arises".
Yes, when the dog barks I blame that bloody dog, but actually, my ill-will is directed as an aversion toward feelings in my own body, and is in that sense, self-hatred. The dog barks for a long time, wakes me up, and the din hits the auditory nerves and produces unpleasant vibrations through the rest of the nervous system. My adverse reactivity toward that sensation generates ill-will. That ill-will (psychological reaction) in turn affects new unpleasant feelings throughout the nervous system, to which I react adversely, amplifying my misdirected acrimony toward that bloody animal next door.
Most of us, especially on a spiritual forum, and a 'teachers' forum no less, are hesitant to admit we have a tendency to generate ill-will, but every day we are doing it, if someone cuts us off, a telemarketer at dinnertime or someone on Twitter is WRONG! lol, but I think if we can go to the source of what are actually reacting to, then at least the aversion can be properly directed, instead of killing the damn dog.
I love dogs. Still, I dislike when woken up by barking. You described very nicely the progression of dealing with perception. This is a progression that describes the development of the consciousness in the physical, but it can be found in the growth of each individual from birth to senectute, in the development of various gestalts of consciousness, and in the response to each perception instance (as you described). instincts >>> emotions >>> intellect >>> intuition
Surely, in many cases the progression stops in the earlier stages.
anorganic >>> vegetal >>> animal >>> human
child >>> youth >>> adult >>> mature
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 18, 2022 4:56:17 GMT -5
Can you say more about what you consider to be 'ill-will'? Does the internal movement to confront or challenge someone on their behaviour or ideas necessitate a sense of 'ill-will' towards them? To be clear, I'm not opposed to the idea that I experience ill-will, I'm just wanting to understand where you draw the lines with it. Perhaps, as you say, we all experience ill-will, but maybe it's those first few moments of the experience that determines how deep and nasty it gets. When something arises within me that I recognize quickly to be unpleasant, I think I'm fairly conditioned to ask myself....'what is useful (and wise) to do with this? Is this something to be internally managed, or is there some external action to be taken?' (Just noticing that 'ill-will' is one of those words, where if you say it enough, it starts to seem very funny ) Ill will is not predetermined. It's strictly a reactive tendency, and in that sense it is not actually will at all. It works in a way we don't expect because we are captivated by the periphery of senses, the sights mostly, but sounds (dog barking), smells/taste, thoughts as well, and are not particularly attuned to how all these culminate in the production of sensations we can feel. The Buddhists say, and I agree with them, that all the reactive tendencies arise from feelings: "From feelings craving arises". Yes, when the dog barks I blame that bloody dog, but actually, my ill-will is directed as an aversion toward feelings in my own body, and is in that sense, self-hatred. The dog barks for a long time, wakes me up, and the din hits the auditory nerves and produces unpleasant vibrations through the rest of the nervous system. My adverse reactivity toward that sensation generates ill-will. That ill-will (psychological reaction) in turn affects new unpleasant feelings throughout the nervous system, to which I react adversely, amplifying my misdirected acrimony toward that bloody animal next door. Most of us, especially on a spiritual forum, and a 'teachers' forum no less, are hesitant to admit we have a tendency to generate ill-will, but every day we are doing it, if someone cuts us off, a telemarketer at dinnertime or someone on Twitter is WRONG! lol, but I think if we can go to the source of what are actually reacting to, then at least the aversion can be properly directed, instead of killing the damn dog.
I understand, thanks, clearly explained. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 18, 2022 12:53:42 GMT -5
Can you say more about what you consider to be 'ill-will'? Does the internal movement to confront or challenge someone on their behaviour or ideas necessitate a sense of 'ill-will' towards them? To be clear, I'm not opposed to the idea that I experience ill-will, I'm just wanting to understand where you draw the lines with it. Perhaps, as you say, we all experience ill-will, but maybe it's those first few moments of the experience that determines how deep and nasty it gets. When something arises within me that I recognize quickly to be unpleasant, I think I'm fairly conditioned to ask myself....'what is useful (and wise) to do with this? Is this something to be internally managed, or is there some external action to be taken?' (Just noticing that 'ill-will' is one of those words, where if you say it enough, it starts to seem very funny ) Ill will is not predetermined. It's strictly a reactive tendency, and in that sense it is not actually will at all. It works in a way we don't expect because we are captivated by the periphery of senses, the sights mostly, but sounds (dog barking), smells/taste, thoughts as well, and are not particularly attuned to how all these culminate in the production of sensations we can feel. The Buddhists say, and I agree with them, that all the reactive tendencies arise from feelings: "From feelings craving arises". Yes, when the dog barks I blame that bloody dog, but actually, my ill-will is directed as an aversion toward feelings in my own body, and is in that sense, self-hatred. The dog barks for a long time, wakes me up, and the din hits the auditory nerves and produces unpleasant vibrations through the rest of the nervous system. My adverse reactivity toward that sensation generates ill-will. That ill-will (psychological reaction) in turn affects new unpleasant feelings throughout the nervous system, to which I react adversely, amplifying my misdirected acrimony toward that bloody animal next door. Most of us, especially on a spiritual forum, and a 'teachers' forum no less, are hesitant to admit we have a tendency to generate ill-will, but every day we are doing it, if someone cuts us off, a telemarketer at dinnertime or someone on Twitter is WRONG! lol, but I think if we can go to the source of what are actually reacting to, then at least the aversion can be properly directed, instead of killing the damn dog.
The depth and breadth of the possible human response to negative reactions is quite vast. I can relate to what you describe quite directly, and I'll refrain from relating it to existential realization so as not to digress or cause controversy, but it is a significant factor, and fwiw, a potential opportunity for you. I've met people who really never would hurt a fly, and who never have. But this isn't a simple equation in one variable. Some harmless folks complain, gripe and even bluster, quite a bit. On the other hand, some of the most dangerous are also the most calm, cool and collected. Looking inward, there's this black hole, and paradoxically, it's the self-judgment about the reaction itself that has the potential to dig you even deeper. Of course, looking inward is the only way to go on this, and so yes, I understand the limited value of writing a post like this. |
|
They filmed a series of episodes where people formed romantic couples from a group with weekly eliminations, etc .. then at the end they each had to decide whether they would split a sum of money. The individuals in each couple made a choice in secret, with, of course, four possible outcomes: 
)