Ethics

LOVE, LOVE, LOVE....












sorry I couldnt resist..the letting go journey was very difficult for me..:) I can be quite strong willed...:)

[Gem]

Originally Posted by silent whisper

OH so in saying "capital letters"..you mean for the greater ethical practices..meaning not your own personal ones. In that case being aware of others not interested was valid in your reply.

I didn't make my standard the be all for everyone else by making capital words as though I speak for God. If people want to do that, might as well know I have no interest in such grandure.

I guess a great deal of responsiblity in ones ethical approach with others comes through ethical awareness and attitude perhaps. How do we develop that? Well if the responsibility factor comes into it...I guess if you are aware in that regard to the extent of ones responsiblities in what you take on or do regarding others, then it would be easier. Some need to learn, some gather and learn naturally about responsiblities in life school itself.

I noticed from the begining that thoughtful consideration was dismissed, but as that happened grand ideals were put forward as though these are the absolutes, but it is also unethical to impose lofty notions which are kind of dictated as the Truth.

Yeah I could be silent, I first wanted to be, because the authority of these capitalized notions mean they have a particular authority from God, that presents a position of knowingness to which an average suburban boy like me should just listen.

In turn, such an arrangement puts those who assume authority in a position of trust, unfortunately, that can be misplaced because the authority has designs of his own, his own beliefs to validate etc.

I example an issue I had at the homeless shelter. They come it for a meal, and we servers are supposed to go talk to them and pray with them etc, but I suspect it's a conversion to christ intent... and after it closes the missionary group meet and discuss what the homeless has said to them. To me it's all very strange and there are some problems with confidentiality and ones serving their own beliefs.

Originally Posted by Gem

I didn't make my standard the be all for everyone else by making capital words as though I speak for God. If people want to do that, might as well know I have no interest in such grandure.



I noticed from the begining that thoughtful consideration was dismissed, but as that happened grand ideals were put forward as though these are the absolutes, but it is also unethical to impose lofty notions which are kind of dictated as the Truth.

Yeah I could be silent, I first wanted to be, because the authority of these capitalized notions mean they have a particular authority from God, that presents a position of knowingness to which an average suburban boy like me should just listen.

In turn, such an arrangement puts those who assume authority in a position of trust, unfortunately, that can be misplaced because the authority has designs of his own, his own beliefs to validate etc.

I example an issue I had at the homeless shelter. They come it for a meal, and we servers are supposed to go talk to them and pray with them etc, but I suspect it's a conversion to christ intent... and after it closes the missionary group meet and discuss what the homeless has said to them. To me it's all very strange and there are some problems with confidentiality and ones serving their own beliefs.

Yes I dont like the feel of that space..unless of course the feedback system is to gather information to help out souls with more assistance of course.. You know that moment where you are able to simply just be yourself connect and share is to me the most powerful connection at times..a natural call to be there, nothing forced, just going where one is lead and where the conversation goes...creating a connection to soul who may otherwise be alone and have no one to talk too. Perhaps thats whats important to you. I guess it comes back to the reasons behind these discussions and the way in which one is prepared to offer that feedback..as they see it.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by silent whisper

Yes I dont like the feel of that space..unless of course the feedback system is to gather information to help out souls with more assistance of course.. You know that moment where you are able to simply just be yourself connect and share is to me the most powerful connection at times..a natural call to be there, nothing forced, just going where one is lead and where the conversation goes...creating a connection to soul who may otherwise be alone and have no one to talk too. Perhaps thats whats important to you. I guess it comes back to the reasons behind these discussions and the way in which one is prepared to offer that feedback..as they see it.

As they see it... that's interesting... because 'as they see it' isn't what ethics does. I know people want to make this about my personal imposed ethics, but first note, it wasn't me who capitalized my notions, and I continually refer to universal values like trust confidentiality and respect.

If I speak in small letters and another speaks in capital letters does it not appear the other speaks of something far greater? Doesn't it merely inflate one voice above another?

Originally Posted by Gem

As they see it... that's interesting... because 'as they see it' isn't what ethics does. I know people want to make this about my personal imposed ethics, but first note, it wasn't me who capitalized my notions, and I continually refer to universal values like trust confidentiality and respect.

If I speak in small letters and another speaks in capital letters does it not appear the other speaks of something far greater? Doesn't it merely inflate one voice above another?

God..............

Actually god all bl**** mighty........

Originally Posted by Gem

I didn't make my standard the be all for everyone else by making capital words as though I speak for God. If people want to do that, might as well know I have no interest in such grandure...

I find it a bit ironic how you talk about other people's grandeur, yet name yourself 'Gem' and choose the avvy that someone says makes you look like a god.

You talk about others capital letters, but isn't that just your own capital letters - but rather than emphasizing your own words, it ridicules others ways of expressing themselves. It's like you want other people to accept whatever you say without any competition, including such trivial things as capital letters, so you isolate and demean all the little ways people have of trying to emphasize their own ideas.

A very poor way to try to emphasize your own words, IMO - but I guess all's fair in love and ETHICS.

I think, in the end, you are just like everyone else, but mostly like those you ridicule, a large part of your posts devoted to obliquely demeaning anyone you think might disagree with you, and cultivating your own conversational power at their expense - but I'm sure that's just me.

I have posted as insightfully as I can in this topic with ideas very similar to and even supportive of yours - but I guess I need to watch my capital letters more seriously if I want you to not take me so seriously.

Originally Posted by Humm

Would that make what he is doing right?

The point is not whether what he is doing is ethical. It whether what you are doing is ethical. What if the policeman worked for a corrupt government or was corrupt himself and breached his confidence for your concocted idea of the 'higher good'. Whereas if you where in contact with Divine Will you would know when it was for the Higher Good to breach his confidence or not. But on the mundane platform due to you limited senses, you don't know. You don't know if the cop is a good cop or a bad cop. All human beings need to be humble, accept our limitations and realize that until follow Divine Will we are not following the Higher Good.

Originally Posted by Humm

I think it is readily deducible what the greater good is. It just takes discerning awareness and judicious intelligence.

Intelligence who's information is based on limited senses is very imperfect. Besides that our intelligence is covered by many illusions such lust, greed, etc. In our materialistic society practically the only intelligence we have is how to exploit and make money.

Originally Posted by Gem

It's important to be considerate, and consideration is an intellectual process, so our ability to intellectualize is very important. It's not the enemy to 'divine will'. teehee.

yes intelligence begins when we inquire about why am I suffering? Who am I? What happens when I die? Who is God? What is His Will for my life? Until we come this point, our intelligence is simply on the animal platform of how can i increase my level of eating, sleeping, mating and defending.

Originally Posted by Arawn

To me, meat eating isn't wrong; there (in my opinion) is nothing wrong with eating something that the species has ate for thousands upon thousands of years. If I was born into a cannibalistic society, chances are I wouldn't see eating a fellow human as wrong because of how I was raised.

I don't think you are qualified to speak for the entire species and their eating habits for 'thousands upon thousands of years'. Nor do I think the way that you are raised somehow justifies unethical behavior. We are intelligent human being who have access to higher knowledge (especially in this society) and therefore we have no excuse to follow the ignorant ways of materialistic parents.

Originally Posted by Arawn

These are just the individual gods and the entire mythos of that pantheon have their own ethical rules that happen to coincide with Western culture.

How convenient. I thought you originally said they have no ethics.

Originally Posted by Arawn

Capitalized, "God" does mean someone omnipotent. Lower cased, it does not. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god) Trying to push your beliefs on me that there is only one god isn't much appreciated. I acknowledge that you can believe that there is only one god (or God), but it isn't a belief that I have. I do not believe that your belief isn't valid and I think it is a perfectly valid belief and has as much validness as the beliefs that there are many gods.

I also believe that there are gods, but I think that gods implies that there must be a Supreme God. I mean who gave these gods their positions? Who arranged the whole thing? Who is empowering these gods?
Don't ministers imply there must be a king?

Originally Posted by I-Ching

The point is not whether what he is doing is ethical. It whether what you are doing is ethical. What if the policeman worked for a corrupt government or was corrupt himself and breached his confidence for your concocted idea of the 'higher good'. Whereas if you where in contact with Divine Will you would know when it was for the Higher Good to breach his confidence or not. But on the mundane platform due to you limited senses, you don't know. You don't know if the cop is a good cop or a bad cop. All human beings need to be humble, accept our limitations and realize that until follow Divine Will we are not following the Higher Good.

My "concocted" idea? Why, thank you sir! You humble me.

Why state that the point isn't if he is ethical, then elaborate another hypothetical what-if where he is even more unethical? Your example seems to illustrate the opposite of what you state.

But I suppose that's besides the position you seem to be coming from, which seems to be the spiritual perspective, that of following the 'Divine will'. Honestly, I'm down with that. Further, I believe that true morality is in line with 'Divine will' - that it will not run counter to it. This is the point I tried to make in the link I gave. Did you read it?

I think it is exactly the Divine in 'Divine will' that has written this morality into the mundane platform - not in the sense of limitations, such as human law with it's system of crimes and punishments, allowed and prohibited activities and behaviors, but in relationship and Karma, as a 'condition' of empowerment through growth and expansion.

So, though these 'natural values' are of Divine origin, I think they are intellectually coherent, and can be codified to a written system of law.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

Intelligence who's information is based on limited senses is very imperfect. Besides that our intelligence is covered by many illusions such lust, greed, etc. In our materialistic society practically the only intelligence we have is how to exploit and make money.

Intelligence is a tool, applicable to any reasoning task. Like any other tool, how we use it will determine what we make from it. For example, from secularhumanism.org:

As secular humanists we believe in the central importance of the value of human happiness here and now. We are opposed to absolutist morality, yet we maintain that objective standards emerge, and ethical values and principles may be discovered, in the course of ethical deliberation. Secular humanist ethics maintains that it is possible for human beings to lead meaningful and wholesome lives for themselves and in service to their fellow human beings without the need of religious commandments or the benefit of clergy. There have been any number of distinguished secularists and humanists who have demonstrated moral principles in their personal lives and works: Protagoras, Lucretius, Epicurus, Spinoza, Hume, Thomas Paine, Diderot, Mark Twain, George Eliot, John Stuart Mill, Ernest Renan, Charles Darwin, Thomas Edison, Clarence Darrow, Robert Ingersoll, Gilbert Murray, Albert Schweitzer, Albert Einstein, Max Born, Margaret Sanger, and Bertrand Russell, among others.