What role does God play in morals? Is there such a thing as

[Runt]

While both Prohibition and the War On Drugs sought/seek to end the sale and consumption of drugs (and I personally consider alcohol to be a drug), there is a difference, which lies in the level of threat each substance posed for society.

Alcohol is bad; I will admit that. Depression, pregnancy, alcoholism, fetal alcohol syndrome, alcohol poisoning, liver problems, car accidents, domestic abuse: all these things are either caused or can be caused by alcohol abuse.

However, there are individuals who can use it responsibly (though why they would want to is beyond me). America has such a problem with alcohol abuse compared to other nations because of the very fact that we FORBID it: our teenagers and sometimes even our preteens seek it because it is forbidden, and young adults drink themselves stupid because it is a novelty. Those who survive this dangerous stage may become addicted to alcohol for life. In other nations, in particular European nations, the thrill of alcohol is removed. A friend of mine who lives in France told me that although teenagers can drink there, it is usually done with family rather than with friends. There are far less problems there than there are here in the US.

Drugs are simply bad. They cannot be used responsibly; the effects of drugs like cocaine, LSD, and others are far greater than those of alcohol, it is much easier to overdose, and it generally leads to serious financial problems because drugs are far more expensive than alcohol. Furthermore, because drugs are more forbidden than even alcohol, those who sell them make a ton of money, and the cycle just continues.

So the difference? Prohibition tried to end a social ill that could POTENTIALLY lead and OCCASSIONALLY led to serious problems in society and in private lives. The War On Drugs seeks to end a social ill that ALWAYS leads to big trouble.

 

[Engyo]

Runt -

Here is where the cynicism comes into play......

"The War On Drugs seeks to end a social ill that ALWAYS leads to big trouble."

I disagree that this social ill ALWAYS leads to trouble. I also disagree in a big way that the way the US government and the state governments have declared war on this ill actually seeks to end it. I think this is more designed to harness it for the benefit of certain interests.

I think that it does a number of things; it gives a handle on certain "less desirable" segments of the population, allowing them to be easily incarcerated and "swept up"..... It gives organized crime something to do, allows for law enforcement and prison industry budgets to keep increasing, provides LOTS and LOTS of money with no legal handles on it for use in bribing foreign governments and insurgents, and anyone willing to take a few risks can get richer than Midas.

Personally, (from a certain amount of experience) alcohol is about in the middle of the spectrum of destructiveness of the range of intoxicants. Yet this one is legalized. If we had a societal shift to viewing addiction in any form as a medical problem from a legal one, there would be great benefits in my view. Of course there would also be attendant problems, but I believe this would be far less destructive (taken in total) than the way the issue is pursued today. The revenue freed up alone is more than enough to cover the medical care required; there is also income available from taxation of the less-harmful-than-alcohol varieties. If this model is successful with alcohol in Europe, why would it not work on this here?

I also see a disturbing trend with the pharmaceutical industry these days. If you have anything about yourself you don't like, or need to change, we have a pill for you! Side effects are mild! Desirable side effects lasting more than four hours require immediate medical attention! Your child won't eat his spinach? Try new PopEyeus! Tell your doctor if your child begins grazing on your lawn, or if her skin turns more than three shades greener than it is now.

Sorry, this is a hot button for me (can you tell?).

 

[Runt]

LMAO. Point taken.

It WOULD be nice for any addiction to be treated as a medical problem... immediatly. Before the person becomes DANGEROUSLY addicted. (Like, supposedly if you have a drink a day to "relax" you are technically an alcoholic... but you do not suffer yet or have serious effects from the consumption of alcohol because you are not really drinking much of the stuff). Same with smoking... why do people do it when they KNOW it is dangerous? If they want to relax, why not go read a book or take a jog?

 

[Engyo]

Runt -

Congratulations on not smoking or drinking!

 

[Runt]

Lol, thanks!

 

[Alaric]

Just think how different the views of the Abrahamic religions are. We discuss morality like it's something we can understand; we determine right from wrong because of what we perceive are the consequences to individuals and society. We make it up as we go along, and recognise the potential fallibility of our values.

Many theists, however, think that humans are flawed, and cannot know morality - only God can. In which case they invoke concepts like 'duty' and 'faith' and 'obedience' and require that they follow the precepts of their holy books and teachings to the letter. It is therefore justified to impose all everyone a common law that must be obeyed whether they like it or not; or more importantly, whether they understand it or not.

This is what I think is so important about morality - understanding.

Buddhism doesn't actually *prohibit* killing or any other "sin"; it merely explains that the karmic burden one acquires by doing so is such that killing is a seriously unwise choice. There is no sin as such; every thought, word or action one makes creates karma, which becomes a part of one's life. The effects of this karma come to light during this and future lives, so basically I am responsible for everything I think, say or do. The things that happen to me in my life today are the results of past karma. I am not *forbidden* to do anything I choose, but I am cautioned that I will receive the karmic rewards of whatever that is. Based on this, it only makes sense to make choices which create the most positive possible karma.

Engyo, wouldn't you agree that a true 'moral' outlook would involve acting while taking the potential consequences of your actions on the world around you into consideration because you care about it, rather than worrying about karma? My point is that if they overlap (which they should) then you shouldn't need the concept of karma at all - people would only care if they only cared about themselves in the first place. Otherwise you have people acting to minimise karma in the same way Christians act to get to Heaven, instead of acting simply from the pleasure of being good to others. If self-mastery involves understanding your place in the universe and your interrelationships with others, allowing you to be a truly moral person, is there anything in the Buddhist quest for Enlightenment that is fundamentally different from a rationalist quest for the ending of suffering? Does it involve faith that the Buddha knew what he was doing, or did the Buddha explain why the actions that caused negative karma do so? (I might follow up with something in the Buddhist forum.)

 

[Engyo]

Engyo, wouldn't you agree that a true 'moral' outlook would involve acting while taking the potential consequences of your actions on the world around you into consideration because you care about it, rather than worrying about karma? My point is that if they overlap (which they should) then you shouldn't need the concept of karma at all - people would only care if they only cared about themselves in the first place. Otherwise you have people acting to minimise karma in the same way Christians act to get to Heaven, instead of acting simply from the pleasure of being good to others.

If the end result is the same, does it matter whether I do it out of the pleasure of doing good for others, or because I am worried about creating positive karma? Can not both motives be occuring at the same time? Is one of the two inherently better, and if so why?

If self-mastery involves understanding your place in the universe and your interrelationships with others, allowing you to be a truly moral person, is there anything in the Buddhist quest for Enlightenment that is fundamentally different from a rationalist quest for the ending of suffering? Does it involve faith that the Buddha knew what he was doing, or did the Buddha explain why the actions that caused negative karma do so? (I might follow up with something in the Buddhist forum.)

The fourth Noble Truth states that there exists a path to the Cessation of Suffering. I can approach that through a rationalist quest. I can approach it through a Buddhist path. If you want to blaze your own trail, go the rationalist route. Buddhism can give you at least a framework defining the problem, and a few signposts to follow on your path, if that is more to your taste.

I will check to see if I can find an explanation of the "why" of karma......

 

[Alaric]

If the end result is the same, does it matter whether I do it out of the pleasure of doing good for others, or because I am worried about creating positive karma? Can not both motives be occuring at the same time? Is one of the two inherently better, and if so why?

Ahh! Glad you asked...

Because if it were all about the karma, I would have no choice but to cross my fingers and hope that Buddhist morality didn't involve the violation of my rights. You seem to be a Buddhist because Buddhism made sense to you, rather than someone who only holds the views you do because you happen to be a Buddhist; IOW you had a conception of morality first, then chose Buddhism because it conformed and expanded on it (I doubt you would have been a Buddhist if the Buddha had advocated kicking old ladies, for example!) You have an understanding of why kicking old ladies is wrong. (This is probably way too simplistic a description of your reasons for belief, but you get my drift.)

That is very different from someone who was brought up to believe unquestioningly in the Buddha's teachings. If they don't include the 'why' of the morals it espouses, then that person will never appreciate the interrelationships they have with others, never be empathetic, never imagine themselves in someone else's shoes - never show compassion. Would you rather have that Mother Theresa helped the poor in Calcutta because she thought God told her to, or because she genuinely cared for the poor? Both might lead to the same results (although she is likely to be a good deal nicer if it's the latter), but it was only by good fortune. There are plenty of religious laws and practices out there that are not so nice, and we should prefer that people are acting out of compassion and reason rather than blindly following the voices in their heads or the writings of their religion.

Noone can know that their religion is correct; therefore, everyone is in effect required to act towards others in the same way, regardless of their beliefs.

 

[Engyo]

Alaric -

There are plenty of religious laws and practices out there that are not so nice, and we should prefer that people are acting out of compassion and reason rather than blindly following the voices in their heads or the writings of their religion.

I am trying to get my head around the logic that it is better to be compassionate because one *wants to*, than to be compassionate because a religious teaching says one should. What is the difference? What value is added to the compassion manifested by any person by virtue of them *desiring* to be compassionate, rather than striving to be compassionate as an ideal? What is negative about the compassion displayed by a person who is compassionate because their religion teaches this, rather than out of their own desire?

Because if it were all about the karma, I would have no choice but to cross my fingers and hope that Buddhist morality didn't involve the violation of my rights.

I have to do this every time somebody wants to require my child to say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance even though this is something she does not believe in.

You seem to be a Buddhist because Buddhism made sense to you, rather than someone who only holds the views you do because you happen to be a Buddhist; IOW you had a conception of morality first, then chose Buddhism because it conformed and expanded on it

Can this not be said of anyone who chooses a different faith than the one in which they were raised? What if I had been raised a Christian and became an atheist who believed that the purpose of life is to grab as much as I can at the expense of whoever crosses my path? In this scenario I am still choosing something that conforms and expands on my concept of morality.

That is very different from someone who was brought up to believe unquestioningly in the Buddha's teachings. If they don't include the 'why' of the morals it espouses, then that person will never appreciate the interrelationships they have with others, never be empathetic, never imagine themselves in someone else's shoes - never show compassion.

I also don't understand your inference that the teaching regarding karma doesn't include a 'why', or a moral code which can stand on its own. I think we are getting semantically mixed up here..... You originally asked "did the Buddha explain why the actions that caused negative karma do so?" This is really more of a *how* question, isn't it? At least that is the way I read it. The why of karma is very simple. Do you want positive things to happen to you in this lifetime, and good circumstances in your next lifetime? If so, make positive causes to generate positive karma. Is this really very different from "Don't commit sin so you can be granted entry into heaven after you die"? Both are appeals to the ultimately selfish nature of humanity, are they not?

 

[Runt]

I am trying to get my head around the logic that it is better to be compassionate because one *wants to*, than to be compassionate because a religious teaching says one should. What is the difference? What value is added to the compassion manifested by any person by virtue of them *desiring* to be compassionate, rather than striving to be compassionate as an ideal? What is negative about the compassion displayed by a person who is compassionate because their religion teaches this, rather than out of their own desire?

The difference is between doing good with no compassion because you feel that the good works, rather than the compassion behind them, will get you in Heaven (or perhaps give you good karma). Versus doing good for others completly selflessly, without thinking of the benefit for yourself.

For example, I can give to charity because I want to help the poor.

Or I can give to charity because NHS says I must, and if I do I will get a pretty little NHS tassel on my cap when I graduate.

One I am doing selflessly. The other I am doing for my own personal benefit with no thought for the people I am helping. Sure, I may get good karma or points on the Christian God's list for helping, but I will probably also get bad karma, or a bad mark on the Christian God's list, for being selfish and thinking only of myself.

 

[Engyo]

Runt and Alaric -

The only thing I can figure out here is that I have been buddhist long enough to have lost the christian habit of passing judgement on the motivation behind one's action. In the examples you give, Runt, do you think the charity to which you donate cares which motivation you are feeling? Does something different happen with money they receive from completely selfless people than it does with money from people who donate because they know they should, even if they would rather go buy a new CD instead?

I guess this comes from the buddhist perspestive of trying something out to see if it works. Practice dana (the paramita or perfection of generosity) because the teachings tell you to, find out that doing good makes you feel good, and creates good karma (effects in your life). After experiencing that a few times, then you begin to *desire* to do this all on your own without the teaching being any longer necessary.

However, there is no difference in the dana between that from one who has learned this lesson and from one who has not yet earned it. That I guess is what I was getting confused about in your assertion that there is somehow a difference between the two.

 

[Runt]

Not being Christian, but still feeling the motivation behind an action is important, I would not say that it is a "Christian habit of passing judgement on the motivation behind one's action".

Since I don't believe in the concept of sin, it is more a personal choice for me. I feel it is important to do good in thought, not just in action. Think good, then act good. But this does not just mean denying thoughts one would call "evil" (I also don't believe in good and evil)... it means simply not acting on the "evil" and being SURE to act on the "good" (good thoughts and a desire to help are not enough... for you to actually help others, you must also go and HELP them )

In my opinion, there are no eternal consequences for our actions. There is, however, the Threefold Rule: "That which we put out will come back to us times three." (Basically karma... though the return is more immediate...it comes to us in THIS life).

 

[Engyo]

Runt -

Actually the teaching about karma does encompass both of the things you mention. Thoughts do create karma, words do, and actions.

Karma most definitely plays out in this lifetime; that is where we can actually see, learn and understand it. While I can understand that someone being born with birth defects is experiencing the effects of karma, I cannot see those causes. If this were all I had to go on, it would be very hard for me to believe in this teaching.

That said, here is a really simplified math example of how I understand this: karma of wanting to make a donation = +2% Karma of knowing I ought to make a donation but don't want to = -2% Karma from actually making the donation (no matter the motivation) = +98%. Whether I *wanted to* make the donation, or made it anyway, is a small difference to me, and none to the receiver of the donation. After I do this a few times, I will learn from the experience and will *want to* make the donations.

This is why I won't judge the motivation, as long as the result occurs.

 

[anders]

To get away from the cycle of rebirths, I should avoid accumulating karma. So is it better to abstain from the donation? To me, it seems that thinking does not give any karma, but only volitional acting. If making the donation comes to you as an act, as natural as breathing, it should not create karma. (My interpretation.)

An arahant, though (s)he acts, does not accumulate karma, because (s)he is free from the false idea of "self". For him/her there is no rebirth. (Slightly modified from Ph.D. W. Rahula, a Sri Lankan Theravada monk: What the Buddha taught.)

A hungry person is not very interested in whether donated food is given with a loving heart or grudgingly. In my opinion, it is the result that matters. That sure is the case from the receiver's point of view, and I believe it is in karma theory as well.

 

[Engyo]

Anders -

I think we are bumping up against some of the differences between varying traditions in Buddhism.

In my tradition, generally classed as part of Mahayana thought, avoiding the cycle of rebirths is not necessarily equated with Perfect Enlightenment. Thus I am not aiming my practice towards nirvana/nibbana/non-returner status. Rather we aim towards the way of the Bodhisatva, as expounded in the Lotus Sutra.

I won't disagree with you regarding the mechanics of karma; that isn't really a study of ours, other than as a basis for why we direct our practice in certain ways and not in others.

 

[Runt]

That said, here is a really simplified math example of how I understand this: karma of wanting to make a donation = +2% Karma of knowing I ought to make a donation but don't want to = -2% Karma from actually making the donation (no matter the motivation) = +98%.

Hmm... interesting way to look at it. I guess it depends on how value you put on each "action". I personally think it is better all around to just have good modivations behind actions. Not just for me (because I would get good karma, or at least less BAD karma), but also for others who would not be affected by my bad karma.

Say, for example, I was Christian and I donated money to a charity because I wanted to increase my chances of getting into Heaven. Good karma would result from the good action (donating) and bad karma from the selfish motivation. Say my bad karma returns to me later in life...I don't know, say I lose my job. But I have to support my family, so losing my job does not just affect me... it affects my family as well. My children, growing up in a poor household, turn to crime. They get TONS of bad karma...

In a roundabout way, wouldn't the bad karma coming back to me be far greater than just the karma for a bad thought.... because it resulted in such a greater problem (my children turning to crime?)

 

[painted wolf]

picking nits guys?

 

[Engyo]

Runt -

My understanding (which may differ significantly from Anders') is that thoughts create the smallest, or lightest, or least amount of karma; words (whether spoken or written) create the median amount, and actions create the largest, or heaviest, or most amount of karma.

I can think an angry thought about a person driving poorly in front of me; I can curse at him; or I can drive erratically myself and make angry gestures. The thought stays in my head and directly affects only me. The spoken curse affects anyone in the car with me; the angry actions could lead to either an accident or a fight or worse. These are not equally weighted. I can also smile and wave at him. Try this one - first, it's a positive, and secondly it seems to annoy those other drivers as much or more than the words and gestures!

In your example, I believe the effect you have assigned yourself of losing your job years later is significantly out of proportion to the cause (being selfish about a donation). You actually did make the donation; this positive action would result in a net karmic positive for the overall incident. This might be reduced a bit regarding your selfishness, but you were able to overcome that selfishness and make the donation. Had your attitude prevented the donation, a different level of effect might be expected, but even then I think you have the proportions overblown.

Please note that these are strictly my own opinions here; I have no doctrinal basis for these graduated value judgements at this time. They are based on my rough understanding from 22 or so years of experience in oboserving my life with these issues in mind.

 

[Runt]

You actually did make the donation; this positive action would result in a net karmic positive for the overall incident. This might be reduced a bit regarding your selfishness, but you were able to overcome that selfishness and make the donation.

So... you consider the result of "bad karma" to be a lessening in your positive return... rather than an actual negative return?

Say you get lots of good karma for making the donation... but get a papercut for the selfish thought. Wouldn't it still be better to have had good thoughts AND good actions?

picking nits guys?

Naw, just trying to figure out the exact differences between my personal beliefs and Engyo's beliefs... we seem to see things ROUGHLY the same way in some areas... but there are slight differences and I'm trying to see what they are...

 

[Alaric]

I am trying to get my head around the logic that it is better to be compassionate because one *wants to*, than to be compassionate because a religious teaching says one should. What is the difference?

Crikey, Engyo, the difference couldn't be bigger!
What 'compassion' means is by no means obvious. What if someone wanted to kill someone who was feeling depressed, to 'put them out of their misery', because their religion either told them to do this, or because it was a logical consequence of their beliefs? Would you just shrug your shoulders and be okay with that? No, right? And the reason you don't think that that kind of extreme euthanasia is appropriate is (I hope) because you can appreciate that no-one has the right to just go around killing people because they think they should, not because the Buddha said so - if Buddha said it was okay, Buddha would be wrong, and if it netted you positive karma, then you'll have to admit you live in a screwed up world and forego the karma and be reborn as a dung beetle. The difference is absolutely monumental, and I'm not just being dramatic. Never ever act 'morally' according to a religious belief unless you understand exactly why it's good for people. Acting just to garner good karma, besides being selfish, assumes that you are correct in your beliefs, which you might not be. This is what I meant by 'hoping that Buddhism doesn't involve violating my rights' - if you don't know why you should behave in the way that gets you good karma, you will ever be 'a good person', because 'goodness' of someone lies in the motivation, not the consequences (which is how we judge actions).

Even if Buddhism is just a personal religion, your actions still have an effect on others, and in those situations karma is entirely irrelevant. The idea that we should value long-term gain over short-term gain is likewise full of problems, because it assumes that your idea of what will happen in the long-term if we abide by your rules is correct.

Your only way out of this is to explain why the actions for which we gain karma are necessarily and objectively good.

Can this not be said of anyone who chooses a different faith than the one in which they were raised? What if I had been raised a Christian and became an atheist who believed that the purpose of life is to grab as much as I can at the expense of whoever crosses my path? In this scenario I am still choosing something that conforms and expands on my concept of morality.

I said what I did to explain that Buddhism likely fitted with your own morality - you didn't choose Buddhism and then just blindly accepted whatever their version of morality was, did you? You have reasons to believe in the morals you have that don't involve consequences in the afterlife.

This is, incidentally, not the way is should be. Reality comes first, then you act accordingly, rather than believing in a version of reality that appeals to you. (That deserves another thread!)

I also don't understand your inference that the teaching regarding karma doesn't include a 'why', or a moral code which can stand on its own. I think we are getting semantically mixed up here..... You originally asked "did the Buddha explain why the actions that caused negative karma do so?" This is really more of a *how* question, isn't it? At least that is the way I read it. The why of karma is very simple. Do you want positive things to happen to you in this lifetime, and good circumstances in your next lifetime? If so, make positive causes to generate positive karma. Is this really very different from "Don't commit sin so you can be granted entry into heaven after you die"? Both are appeals to the ultimately selfish nature of humanity, are they not?

Yes, they are both appeals to the selfish nature of humanity, and as such, they are WRONG! Why do you care about karma? What if it benefitted you karma-wise to hurt people and cause suffering? Would you sacrifice your afterlife to help people now, or not?