Ethics: Benefit and Harm

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Floatsy

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

I don't love everyone and there's lots of people I don't like, but I'm sure someone else loves them, and it's just a personality thing. I don't go around harming people I don't like, but I don't go out of my way to be kind to them. There's other people who I do like, but I get sick of them and need a break. That's how it is. That's the truth of it. I don't revere anyone or have any spiritual icons, and the people who are actually in my life are not perfectly loving or perfectly kind, much like me. The iconography represented by the capitalised 'One' isn't the way real people are, and the ethic doesn't arise from some shining ideal of perfect love and kindness in the imaginary. Equality is a principle that comes from mutuality.

[Floatsy]

As you see it, Gem, is fine with me. This is a forum so we share our perspectives and that yours is honest is enough for me.

Blessings (with no soppy intention behind it). I will leave your thread now, with respect to you and your life.

[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"

[Gem]

Originally Posted by WuWei

When talking about this subject I think it's important to remember that the base of nature, that we all live in is one of a power game. We are wrestling with everything, that's my way of saying dhukka. There was no fairness, each individual in this particular world is autonomous in the sense that their own ability is fundamentally what they are.

Tru dat. Ethics has everything to do with power - and who exercises it. The concept of autonomy is similar to the concept of self determination I mentioned in my previous post, so the ethic in this case isn't so much to 'do what is best' but to open up a wider range of possibilities. Often the 'good intention' approach is like, we see a promlem here and we are going to do 'this' particular thing. That actually narrows things into a single possibility. The other approach is to listen to how the problem is being experienced and create an environment of continual flexibility where possibility is cotinually changing, and ideally, expanding.

With that in mind I think that choices happen as naturally as clouds happen, and it is both our right and curse to be our selves only true responsibility. This truth is something we need to accept about humanity, that the winners will always have losers, and there will always be a challenger. This is a combative world, and much of spirituality is an attempt to remove the fear.

I think the answer to ethics is do what you would do, if you were fearless.

Well, it's a good point, and personally I always thing about ethics as a way of redistributing power, which is to say, empowering the disadvantaged who are many, but have little influence over anything and subjected to oppression in their own lives. Sometimes fear is an obstacle, particularly in regards to the us and them divide, so I have a concept I call 'connection' which is founded on the logic that since we are alive we're 'connected' to all life...

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Tanemon

I'm seen by most people as quite tolerant - and interested in others' points of view, value systems, and so forth. Yet I realize that there are groups (the Taliban and the KKK would be examples) who are adamant in their outlooks and values ("what they think is best") and whose values I might never sympathize with or respect. Still, I do not seem to have to come into contact with these people.

It's not my role in life to interfere with the many groups of this sort, yet my opinions about them are less than supportive. And I can understand the complexities when governments and modern law-makers are obliged to confront these people. Also, hmm, I do wonder how happy the women are, living in communities where the Taliban have taken over.

Yep, clearly some value systems are batty, and that's where it becomes more sublime that being tolerant and respecting beliefs, as we're 'supposed to'. I mean we are 'supposed to' respect some religion's beliefs but we are 'not supposed to' respect KKK beliefs. I don't know who made up those rules. For example, my cousin is involved in this 'Reclaim Australia' movement, which is basically 'White Australia' ideals with a particular discrimination against Muslims. I agree Muslims have batty beliefs as well, but I say that about all the religions. Mostly, I can't stand White Australia (though I am a white Australian).

Anyway... it's ok to hate peoples religions, beiefs and races ad so on. I hate Reclaim Australia's values for example, but people have a right to that and no one should be out there trying to tell them what to do. I like my cousin even though she's an ignorant bigot who lives in white fantasy land. I even like it that she does. It becomes an issue, well firstly when moral do-gooders impose their beliefs on the haters, and secondly, when the haters impose their beliefs on others. The ethic isn't really concerned with what people beleive; it is only concerned with imposing beliefs and values on others...

[WuWei]

Originally Posted by Gem

Tru dat. Ethics has everything to do with power - and who exercises it. The concept of autonomy is similar to the concept of self determination I mentioned in my previous post, so the ethic in this case isn't so much to 'do what is best' but to open up a wider range of possibilities. Often the 'good intention' approach is like, we see a promlem here and we are going to do 'this' particular thing. That actually narrows things into a single possibility. The other approach is to listen to how the problem is being experienced and create an environment of continual flexibility where possibility is cotinually changing, and ideally, expanding.



Well, it's a good point, and personally I always thing about ethics as a way of redistributing power, which is to say, empowering the disadvantaged who are many, but have little influence over anything and subjected to oppression in their own lives. Sometimes fear is an obstacle, particularly in regards to the us and them divide, so I have a concept I call 'connection' which is founded on the logic that since we are alive we're 'connected' to all life...

Once we understand that nobody but those who have power, deserve power. I have a concept I call 'because reality', though it's not as flippant as it might sound. It means that if someone has achieved something, they have done so within the boundaries of reality and therefore it is justified. So the kind of idea that those who have made the most should share, I think is excessive to the truth of things.

I know it's hard, but none of us are owed equality - those of us who made ourselves 'superior' clearly just knew the truth while others didn't. I don't think 'we' can take much pride from that however, as we're just products of nature and have had our own random influences. This is why a royal family is actually quite an amazing entity, imo.

The world may be combative by nature, in which case trying to continuously soften it may be a futureless endeavor. The method I would suggest is not to get the world to soften, but the people to harden. And we also see this is a naturally occuring thing too, with those who are oppressed - when they rise for themselves. Teach kids how to survive independantly in the capitalist jungle, sort of thing.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by WuWei

Once we understand that nobody but those who have power, deserve power. I have a concept I call 'because reality', though it's not as flippant as it might sound. It means that if someone has achieved something, they have done so within the boundaries of reality and therefore it is justified. So the kind of idea that those who have made the most should share, I think is excessive to the truth of things.

The ethics of power, and it has a lot to do with power, can be exampled in the Australian Aboriginal context, which is a story of great oppression and dominance which was predicated on common Western beliefs that Aboriginal peoples were inferior in race, morality and culture. In this context, sharing would pertain to respect between peoples where the aboriginal knowledge, languages and cultures and laws would be considered valid as people entered into an exchange of mutual learning. That is not the case. The case we have at hand is the dominance of Western culture over indigenous peoples who's cultures were decimated and continue to be undermined. This led to simply awful maltreatment and neglect that resulted in severe harm. That is an example in real life that can also be thought of metaphorically.

I know it's hard, but none of us are owed equality - those of us who made ourselves 'superior' clearly just knew the truth while others didn't. I don't think 'we' can take much pride from that however, as we're just products of nature and have had our own random influences. This is why a royal family is actually quite an amazing entity, imo.

The world may be combative by nature, in which case trying to continuously soften it may be a futureless endeavor. The method I would suggest is not to get the world to soften, but the people to harden. And we also see this is a naturally occuring thing too, with those who are oppressed - when they rise for themselves. Teach kids how to survive independantly in the capitalist jungle, sort of thing.

Ok, I'm not here to say I have solutons or answers. I don't, and I don't suppose there are any. I'm looking past what I might suppose are the right things to do and suggesting that it's more ethical to be reserved about that, and instead of suggesting solutions for others, being more adept at 'creating the space' in which people can articulate the issue, understand the problem more completely ad more fundamentally, and make 'the right decisions' based on that more holistic understanding.

[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.

[Serrao]

All the great teachers had one specific perspective in common: The Golden Rule.
Do not do unto others what you would not want done to yourself.
I think this rule is closely related to ethics.

This reminds me of verse 6.32 of the Bhagavad Gita:
He is a perfect yogi who, by comparison to his own self, sees the true equality of all beings, both in their happiness and distress, O Arjuna!

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by Serrao

All the great teachers had one specific perspective in common: The Golden Rule.
Do not do unto others what you would not want done to yourself.
I think this rule is closely related to ethics.

This reminds me of verse 6.32 of the Bhagavad Gita:
He is a perfect yogi who, by comparison to his own self, sees the true equality of all beings, both in their happiness and distress, O Arjuna!

That almost bought tears to my eyes. I must have felt something in that important in me.