Ethics: Benefit and Harm

[Gem]

You know that saying 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'? It's true. For example, the Christian missions in 20th century Australia were well intended, but they were instrumental in undermining the Aboriginal cultures, and caused great harm. This means your good intentions are your intentions and are not the intentions of another person, and acting on good intentions is just an excuse for imposing one's own intentions on others.

This is where one has to understand ethics - because good intentions are potentially harmful, and often are, hence the saying I mentioned above. People mistake ethics for morals, but morals are values based on beliefs and cultural norms etc, while ethics are grounded in the real world of benefit and harm, and frankly, imposing ones own moral values on others is invariably disrespectful and paternalistic, as the missionary treatment of Aboriginal peoples demonstrates.

Ethics is complicated because benefit and harm isn't so cut and dried. Often one person's benefit is at the expense of others. Sometimes an action in one circumstance is harmful, but in a different scenario the same action is beneficial. Sometimes things look harmful or risky on the surface, but there is a deeper aspect of benefit involved underneath.

I wonder where it starts, and I suggest it begins with having respect, understanding that 'my good intentions' have nothing to do with what others intend. To benefit others I'd have to understand what they think is best, what they want for themselves, and what their moral values are. To respect that difference and afford the dignity that a person has a right to manage their life in their own way according to their own values - and not my way according to my values, or what I think is best.

[Floatsy]

A great perspective. I always wondered why people were killing each other in the name of God, or why pro-life activists would see fit to murder in the name of life.

In my opinion, there was no better solution than to manifest Ultimate Truth, .. but I really like and appreciate your viewpoints herein. Self-reflection and modification of attitude is also fundamental.

Thanks for your post, Gem.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Floatsy

A great perspective. I always wondered why people were killing each other in the name of God, or why pro-life activists would see fit to murder in the name of life.

In my opinion, there was no better solution than to manifest Ultimate Truth, .. but I really like and appreciate your viewpoints herein. Self-reflection and modification of attitude is also fundamental.

Thanks for your post, Gem.

Where there is supposed to be an ultimate truth, knowers impose it over the ignorant, and over-lording of the truth is very problematic in terms of power imbalances in human relationships.

I would suggest that when a person makes claim to ultimate truth they also assume a position of absolute power and influence. We see people drinking the Kool-Aid all the time under such notions - as well as killing each-other under God's truth.

The truth is a matter of the integrity, dignity and respect on which ethics are founded. These aren't arrived at as a matter of conclusion, but rather we have a sense for them as intangible qualities that transcend intellectualism. Ethics operates at that sublime level, and instead of being morally codified so they can be learned and known, ethics arise from unknowable yet mutual humanity.

[Floatsy]

Originally Posted by Gem

Where there is supposed to be an ultimate truth, knowers impose it over the ignorant, and over-lording of the truth is very problematic in terms of power imbalances in human relationships.

I would suggest that when a person makes claim to ultimate truth they also assume a position of absolute power and influence. We see people drinking the Kool-Aid all the time under such notions - as well as killing each-other under God's truth.

The truth is a matter of the integrity, dignity and respect on which ethics are founded. These aren't arrived at as a matter of conclusion, but rather we have a sense for them as intangible qualities that transcend intellectualism. Ethics operates at that sublime level, and instead of being morally codified so they can be learned and known, ethics arise from unknowable yet mutual humanity.

That's because you assume that Ultimate Truth is exclusive.

You assert that this understanding equates to dominance, belief and rigidity when my experience of these people equate to selflessness, compassion and understanding.

IOW, you'd have to know it to understand what is being said.

Ethics is a codified belief system, in Middle Eastern countries, it might be ethical to not wear a short skirt, for example. The Salem Witch trials saw fit to put people to death for being morally corrupt, and possibly doing Devil-ry. IOW, as long as things are in the realm of belief, all sorts of trickery is possible. Even for those with "good intentions", hence the road to hell.

Ultimate Truth is not different to the realizations of Saints in all Contemplative traditions, and to mistake it for belief is a mistake in my viewpoint. That being said, you would be harkened to hear that most who see this don't try to impose, but they certainly have spoken (Rumi, Eckhart, Buddha, Jesus etc.)

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Floatsy

That's because you assume that Ultimate Truth is exclusive.

You assert that this understanding equates to dominance, belief and rigidity when my experience of these people equate to selflessness, compassion and understanding

IOW, you'd have to know it to understand what is being said.

I understand the truth as being honest and sincere.

Ethics is a codified belief system, in Middle Eastern countries, it might be ethical to not wear a short skirt, for example. The Salem Witch trials saw fit to put people to death for being morally corrupt, and possibly doing Devil-ry. IOW, as long as things are in the realm of belief, all sorts of trickery is possible. Even for those with "good intentions", hence the road to hell.

Ultimate Truth is not different to the realizations of Saints in all Contemplative traditions, and to mistake it for belief is a mistake in my viewpoint. That being said, you would be harkened to hear that most who see this don't try to impose, but they certainly have spoken (Rumi, Eckhart, Buddha, Jesus etc.)

[Floatsy]

Originally Posted by Gem

I understand the truth as being honest and sincere.

Ethics operates at that sublime level, and instead of being morally codified so they can be learned and known, ethics arise from unknowable yet mutual humanity.

True equality, my One, called it.

From genuine equality, all life is possible...

Whilst there are many charlatans and power-seekers, knowingly or unwittingly themselves, I am forever grateful for those that showed me what is possible - with love, a different way of being, choice, encouragement, kindness and possibility beyond my prior imagination.

From Love that is Equality, how could you doubt such kindness?

Perhaps I have been blessed herein. My doubt on such Ones does not exist, the cake is so, the air is sweet, nor have I lost my mind

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by Gem

You know that saying 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'? It's true. For example, the Christian missions in 20th century Australia were well intended, but they were instrumental in undermining the Aboriginal cultures, and caused great harm. This means your good intentions are your intentions and are not the intentions of another person, and acting on good intentions is just an excuse for imposing one's own intentions on others.

This is where one has to understand ethics - because good intentions are potentially harmful, and often are, hence the saying I mentioned above. People mistake ethics for morals, but morals are values based on beliefs and cultural norms etc, while ethics are grounded in the real world of benefit and harm, and frankly, imposing ones own moral values on others is invariably disrespectful and paternalistic, as the missionary treatment of Aboriginal peoples demonstrates.

Ethics is complicated because benefit and harm isn't so cut and dried. Often one person's benefit is at the expense of others. Sometimes an action in one circumstance is harmful, but in a different scenario the same action is beneficial. Sometimes things look harmful or risky on the surface, but there is a deeper aspect of benefit involved underneath.

I wonder where it starts, and [b]I suggest it begins with having respect, understanding that 'my good intentions' have nothing to do with what others intend. To benefit others I'd have to understand what they think is best, what they want for themselves, and what their moral values are. To respect that difference and afford the dignity that a person has a right to manage their life in their own way according to their own values - and not my way according to my values, or what I think is best.

Yes I see your point and your right. If we apply this as our starting point, one can often gauge at that point what kind of bridge can be built with a more inclusive awareness of another's needs and values.

Its difficult one also, because sometimes values are skewed with a lot of other stuff intermixed. So even with respect and acceptance of others values, their is often a whole host of things moving through the whole that interferes with the intended process in this way. So it may be turn into a more complex consideration in this way.

And often, it reveals itself down the track as you show with the plight of the Aboriginals. The affects of decisions that are often made without the complete picture or deeper considerations, will reflect that lack as one in some way.

I guess being human, we all learn as we go, sometimes we learn the hard/painful ways, sometimes we learn in more loving/caring ways. I guess we can only come together more in the space of deeper understanding and awareness of others regardless of what they are being and doing and what they know or don't know.






"I know nothing of you until you show me, you"

[Gem]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

Yes I see your point and your right. If we apply this as our starting point, one can often gauge at that point what kind of bridge can be built with a more inclusive awareness of another's needs and values.

Sure, needs is the the centre of it. That's true. In ethics there is mostly more than one person involved, and we might ask who gets to determine what is needed. Often one person will decide for another what it is that they need, which is where this notion of 'what is for the best' comes in.

There is deeper element at play here. We really have to trust that people know what they need for themselves, and that approaches a element deeper than the need itself. Two elements actually, the first is the trust I mentioned, and from that, letting people determine for themselves what the problem might be and what it is they need. This brings up 2 core principles: trust and self-determination.

This also extends to the empowerment issue, where instead of some sort of claimant of truth exerting influence over people, defining their problems and knowing their solutions, a more sublime art, which I call 'creating space' helps to open up a sort 'psychic architecture' in which things can be thought about in a more orderly and clearer way. I mean, I'm getting a bit subsurface here and going before the need, and creating the space in which a person can articulate the problem for themselves in the way they understand it, and express their needs under an aura of self-trust that they are clear about it and making the right decisions - for themselves.

Its difficult one also, because sometimes values are skewed with a lot of other stuff intermixed. So even with respect and acceptance of others values, their is often a whole host of things moving through the whole that interferes with the intended process in this way. So it may be turn into a more complex consideration in this way.

Absolutely, ethics are extremely complicated.

And often, it reveals itself down the track as you show with the plight of the Aboriginals. The affects of decisions that are often made without the complete picture or deeper considerations, will reflect that lack as one in some way.

Yes, and I believe that what I said above was not, and still isn't, applied to the Aboriginal way, and hence, by not understanding the ethics as I'm discussing them, but working on good intentions, a lot of harm was done, and is being done.

I guess being human, we all learn as we go, sometimes we learn the hard/painful ways, sometimes we learn in more loving/caring ways. I guess we can only come together more in the space of deeper understanding and awareness of others regardless of what they are being and doing and what they know or don't know.

Yeppers, What you say here is the reason why I steer away from the lofty ideas of truth and come back to the reality of life. I have to keep my feet on the ground because there are a lot of people, I mean all of us, who do the best we can with what we've got, and learning as we go along is how we get by.

"I know nothing of you until you show me, you"

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by Gem

Sure, needs is the the centre of it. That's true. In ethics there is mostly more than one person involved, and we might ask who gets to determine what is needed. Often one person will decide for another what it is that they need, which is where this notion of 'what is for the best' comes in.

Yes true. Within groups we have many individuals who, regardless of similar values are all unique human beings with unique needs, so in that deciding I would imagine that many peoples values and needs would not be considered when people make decisions for a whole group in light of all this going on within it. How can you determine the needs of larger groups of people unless every individual has been accounted for in the decision making process of what is best? I guess this is where I see that in this kind of intervention and decision making process cannot totally support all people involved successfully, unless all are part of this process. In saying that, perhaps this is where the process of such decisions might only be successful if addressed and created within smaller groups that link to the larger group.
And of course, using people/mediators who become *the voice of many* in ways, that do reflect a deeper awareness and voice to support in this way.

There is deeper element at play here. We really have to trust that people know what they need for themselves, and that approaches a element deeper than the need itself. Two elements actually, the first is the trust I mentioned, and from that, letting people determine for themselves what the problem might be and what it is they need. This brings up 2 core principles: trust and self-determination.

Yes your right. I always say people will choose their own path and meet their own needs their own way, with what they have to do so, even if its not the best choices, from the outside looking into this. So honouring that choice and knowing would be a very beneficial starting point. Empowering people in trust and support of making healthier choices for themselves would definitely require those core principles to be considered in the decision making process, if change is to have any real hope of being successful.

Naturally when people are imposed upon and being told without consent or a willingness to change, imo you have an immediate creation of some kind of backlash or fallout And how people land in this way, hits home in them harder making that fallout much more difficult than it may require to be.

This also extends to the empowerment issue, where instead of some sort of claimant of truth exerting influence over people, defining their problems and knowing their solutions, a more sublime art, which I call 'creating space' helps to open up a sort 'psychic architecture' in which things can be thought about in a more orderly and clearer way. I mean, I'm getting a bit subsurface here and going before the need, and creating the space in which a person can articulate the problem for themselves in the way they understand it, and express their needs under an aura of self-trust that they are clear about it and making the right decisions - for themselves.

Yep, I get it. I had to assist someone today and this very thing arose. Of course it was only one person, but what you say here had to be considered in the space in myself to allow them to open up their problem, reflect more deeply on the nature of the problem and how it was infusing their current world. The only thing I really did was hold the space and used that psychic architecture and not say too much at all. In some ways I noticed that they served their whole space even though there was unwillingness initially because of grief, in the suggestion, but just allowing their unwillingness, something productive opened, they took charge of the process, even though I initially guided *a way* to kick start the process, it was not fixed as *the way*. In allowing the movement to move their way, the grief was released and the outcome of how change could be found, was accepted more readily, with knowing awareness that it would serve them now, having freed the space in them, allowed for more clarity of needs to be naturally accepted through the originally idea offered.

Absolutely, ethics are extremely complicated.

Very much so.

Yes, and I believe that what I said above was not, and still isn't, applied to the Aboriginal way, and hence, by not understanding the ethics as I'm discussing them, but working on good intentions, a lot of harm was done, and is being done.

When we live in a world that opens us all to many different cultures and values, the most ethical approach would be to understand *each way* more deeply. If you impede on another's way with your way, disregarding the deeper issues, often their will be very crucial connections overlooked. But in reflecting on what is and what is the way regardless of what we might see that requires to be *the way* our way really does have to consider the ways of others to build a more unified movement of change, one where others are more willing and hopefully with this inclusion, more successful for all.

Yeppers, What you say here is the reason why I steer away from the lofty ideas of truth and come back to the reality of life. I have to keep my feet on the ground because there are a lot of people, I mean all of us, who do the best we can with what we've got, and learning as we go along is how we get by.

Yep I get it. Part of my own learning was to be kicked back down to reality where I had to learn to not attach to lofty ideas of truth, even though initially it was a nice escape and fantasy way of being. It wasn't sustaining in the greater view of life in me and how I wanted to live and work in the world with real people. I guess, until such time, those who have the responsibility at the decisions making level for others in this world would pay to walk in the shoes of those for a time before deciding. Sometimes that kind of walk really does hit home on how far removed people can be in the *not knowing* of others more complete in their reality.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

Yes true. Within groups we have many individuals who, regardless of similar values are all unique human beings with unique needs, so in that deciding I would imagine that many peoples values and needs would not be considered when people make decisions for a whole group in light of all this going on within it. How can you determine the needs of larger groups of people unless every individual has been accounted for in the decision making process of what is best? I guess this is where I see that in this kind of intervention and decision making process cannot totally support all people involved successfully, unless all are part of this process. In saying that, perhaps this is where the process of such decisions might only be successful if addressed and created within smaller groups that link to the larger group.
And of course, using people/mediators who become *the voice of many* in ways, that do reflect a deeper awareness and voice to support in this way.

I did some work in delivering services effectively to people experiencing homelessness, in three different contexts, but all three found that networks of smaller organisations that shared resources effectively approached more individuals and had better outcomes that one large monolithic organisation (in that case I became a voice for many, but I first listened, and thenbrought their voices). The key is getting down as close as possible to the individual level and hearing what the issue is for them, and then finding a way. The individuals also exist as a community and the whole thing is interwoven (which is where the concept 'connection' comes in), but if you can't get close enough to actually hear the stories that people themselves are telling, you won't do any good - more likely cause harm, actually - that's what usually happens when everyone has solutions but no one is listening.

Yes your right. I always say people will choose their own path and meet their own needs their own way, with what they have to do so, even if its not the best choices, from the outside looking into this. So honouring that choice and knowing would be a very beneficial starting point. Empowering people in trust and support of making healthier choices for themselves would definitely require those core principles to be considered in the decision making process, if change is to have any real hope of being successful.

Yeppers, the ethical approach looks right under the surface of everything, and things like trusting, listening, understanding and supporting are really powerful, much moreso than having 'solutions' for others.

Naturally when people are imposed upon and being told without consent or a willingness to change, imo you have an immediate creation of some kind of backlash or fallout And how people land in this way, hits home in them harder making that fallout much more difficult than it may require to be.

Yep, I get it. I had to assist someone today and this very thing arose. Of course it was only one person, but what you say here had to be considered in the space in myself to allow them to open up their problem, reflect more deeply on the nature of the problem and how it was infusing their current world. The only thing I really did was hold the space and used that psychic architecture and not say too much at all. In some ways I noticed that they served their whole space even though there was unwillingness initially because of grief, in the suggestion, but just allowing their unwillingness, something productive opened, they took charge of the process, even though I initially guided *a way* to kick start the process, it was not fixed as *the way*. In allowing the movement to move their way, the grief was released and the outcome of how change could be found, was accepted more readily, with knowing awareness that it would serve them now, having freed the space in them, allowed for more clarity of needs to be naturally accepted through the originally idea offered.

True, silence is also effective - it's a space. Wow - getting them to take charge is like a huge talent. Awesome. I'm really struck by that.

Very much so.



When we live in a world that opens us all to many different cultures and values, the most ethical approach would be to understand *each way* more deeply. If you impede on another's way with your way, disregarding the deeper issues, often their will be very crucial connections overlooked. But in reflecting on what is and what is the way regardless of what we might see that requires to be *the way* our way really does have to consider the ways of others to build a more unified movement of change, one where others are more willing and hopefully with this inclusion, more successful for all.

Yeah - The way is to understand more deeply. It's part of the spiritual concept of 'becoming conscious', and sometimes a hard issue can just click into place and a person knows just what to do, simply because it, like, 'became clear', where it was previously all so confusing.

Yep I get it. Part of my own learning was to be kicked back down to reality where I had to learn to not attach to lofty ideas of truth, even though initially it was a nice escape and fantasy way of being. It wasn't sustaining in the greater view of life in me and how I wanted to live and work in the world with real people. I guess, until such time, those who have the responsibility at the decisions making level for others in this world would pay to walk in the shoes of those for a time before deciding. Sometimes that kind of walk really does hit home on how far removed people can be in the *not knowing* of others more complete in their reality.

I do find what we usually think of as 'spiritual' is like a domineering - a Telling that makes people docile and obedient - but in my spiritual world, it's the listening. You know, like listening to the birds as you stroll of a morning. No one is telling birds how and what to sing. We just appreciate it as we listen. In the conversation it's almost the same, but a person can tell they are being appreciated and listened to... We should probably understand that it's an honour to the one that hears it - everyone appreciates it then.