Curtis, It's all relative.
Nature builds into the personalities of the species all sorts of instincts that are repugnant. Many animals will eat their kids from time to time. I saw a hippo kill his baby brother the other day -- just to assert his secondary status in the herd -- he wasn't even the herd's head honcho. Spider ladies eat their hubbies. I saw two lions kill an injured lioness "just cuz." Most animals kill to eat, and most animals will kill to survive, and some species even "build in death" as a given -- such as in the case of the birds that lay two eggs knowing the first born will kill the second born. And disturbingly, the lauded big-brainers kill and maraud: great apes are known to kill and eat other apes, and chimps wage war against other troops of chimps. Dolphins will kidnap a female and hold her hostage for sex. I saw an elephant bull kill a female in a zoo -- again, just cuz. And monkeys do adultery by the ton. So "human" morality is not built into most species, and erp, probably not even the human species. Yet, the rule of "no adultery" is a widely observed "moral" amongst most species, with some exceptions of course. But, the no-adultery rule shows that even animals have certain societal and behavioral restraints that are obeyed for the common good, and enforced with the death penalty usually. Some species are highly regimented -- ants, bees, termites, of course, but a great many rules are taught to the young -- taught, not inherited or instinctive. The hippo baby was taught by its mom to stay close to her, but he broke that rule and got attacked and killed by his big brother, see? Do we all agree that survival rules have sculpted cultures? The rules of any given society will, of course, differ from other societies to a striking degree. Moses did genocide, rape and slavery. A Hindu woman is taught that her suicide on her husband's pyre is a holy act, and kamikaze pilots saw no sin in that I'm sure. Clits are cut off. Polygamy is allowed. Temple whores, sacrificed virgins, giving diseased blankets to Native Americans, the list just never ends. Almost any behavior can be found to have been spun until it is justified as good. So, no, Curtis, there is no absolute morality, no ultimate set of laws for how a society can be sustained. But: Almost anything goes some of the time. Almost anytime something can go, But almost anything cannot go all the time. -- Abe Lincoln Curtis, you're teasing me on purpose, it seems, to tweak my nose below, but in light of our recent civility, I'll refrain, mostly, from tiring my fingers by lashing your immorality with my Keystrokes of Doom. But, are you actually saying that adultery is okay as in "if she lets me, I'm sinless and have not harmed anyone or my culture?" I think the marriage laws of every culture labels adultery as a negative, because it is recognized that this bond is a core dynamic of a smooth running culture. It takes two to raise a brood, and, in general, broken homes result in broken kids. So, Curtis, you need to explain "your rules" -- even if your rule is "no rules," and then we'll see if we can imagine an entire culture running with it and see how that might feel. I don't think that any culture in history allowed adultery -- do you know of any -- other than a 60's hippie commune or today's wife-swapping segments of society? And far less likely would be a culture where men could just hit on any woman any time -- it just won't work. Maybe, Curtis, you'll say, well, if a married woman wants me and her kids are all grown up, or she's childless, than every man for himself and heck with another man's "right" to this woman. Is that closer to your morals? Do you think you can decide which marriages are "going to die anyway, so why not get a piece of ass out of that deal, and grab the babe while she's in turmoil, confusion, transition?" I think you do. To be clear, here's my rule: unless the couple is divorced, hands off -- that means don't tempt the partners to stray when there's the least chance they'll find a way to re-bond. That's my rule. Yours? We all know that men have this rule about "no one dates my ex-girlfriend and stays my friend." There's an ownership of rights that men assert along these lines that are, well, pretty clearly understood by all men, and I think it is an intuitive thing, not a morally imposed rule. We just know that this works for us short-tempered thugs with fists. In today's world with so many cultural traditions interfacing in our modern cities, it seems that a climate of anything goes arises, since the Arab across the street has four "tented" wives without clits whom he will ask the village to stone to death if he suspects adultery, and a Catholic priest wants you to eat the blood and body of his god before he'll conduct a marriage rite, and "oh geeze, everyone's got a different notion, so why not me too?" Is that your stance, Curtis? Are you determined to be cultureless and then call that freedom? If so, I'd call it licentious anarchy and hold that a higher minded person will define freedom without needing to declare license as its core dynamic. Er, you're not so sick that you do adultery so that you will be an outcast, are you -- you're not some Hell's Angels wannabe, are you? You're not saying that Hag or More-Ass are moral people, are you? I'm on record here saying that TM doesn't instill morality, but I wish it did. My life has been eviscerated by immoralities of every kind, so I'm dead-fucking-seriously aware of the consequences of the acts of ruleless rogues, but if you, Curtis, want to merely joke about this issue and to have a sophomoric attitude about it and cut farts in the back of the sex-ed class, then we should agree to disagree and go our separate ways, but if you seriously are saying that no rules should be imposed by a culture upon its members regarding adultery, then you are preaching an anarchy that should make you an undesirable in almost any population. I'll bet you follow most of the rules, but why do so when you are so confident that all rule makers are fakers? Edg --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My Lutheran pastor once told me, "The ten commandments are written in > > the human heart." I think that's true. I think that TM's "take it > > easy" reflects a belief that we all know when we're pushing things > > beyond propriety and that that stresses the culture. I think > > Maharishi defined it as "don't do anything you know to be wrong." > > So how does the Paster explain cultures where the religion demands > that people murder their daughters if they are found alone with men > and then feel virtuous afterwards for fulfilling God's law. They feel > just as good about themselves as a Christian giving some charity. > Their heart KNOWS this is RIGHT. > > Morality and ethics start with our social primate past. You can't > hang with a group if you upset the apple cart all the time. But > within this basic framework that seems somewhat unconscious, like the > principle of reciprocity which haunts us in sales situations, there is > a societal agreement about what it right, right? Like slavery was > right, supported in the Bible by God himself, till we all decided it > wasn't. By tying morality and ethics to intuition or scripture we > ignore how flexible both these things are. How they are shaped by our > culture and education. (That was all wind up) > > The pitch: > > If society can admit that, although scriptures and our feelings are a > start for deciding what is right and wrong, we must enter into a > discussion of ethics with some humility. There may not be an absolute > right and wrong, so we might have to just decide for ourselves with no > one getting the upper hand of claiming to know what God wants. > > And for your Paster, if he read the two versions of the 10 > commandments in the Bible carefully he would find that most of them > carry a death sentence according to the scripture. Is it also written > on the human heart that we need to kill adulterers? > > (No seriously, I need to know cuz I got my bags packed if the answer > is "yes"!) > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Angela Mailander wrote: "Would someone please enlighten me about a > > point in this discussion about whether or not morality is natural? Is > > that the only point? Or does it extend to whether or not we should > > make an effort to teach it whether it is natural or not?" > > > > Edg: > > > > Since I've been the prude here, let me chime in. > > > > Without morality, where is the structure of civilization? A certain > > amount of freedom is desired -- but masses without moral restraints -- > > not a pretty picture. Think frat party. > > > > Every god ever imagined was hyped to want something from us > > behaviorally. Doesn't matter if it was a prohibition or a commandment > > to do something, if the god was asking for a meat sacrifice, a virgin > > sacrifice, or a tithing -- it was some sort of restraint on how folks > > were allowed to act and "against" what might be done otherwise by the > > people. (I never did get killing a virgin. Why not toss Barabbas > > into the volcano instead of Christ? That way you show your god that > > you're policing society religiously. Wasting a virgin was symbolic > > that we give our very best to the god, but gimme a break....this is > > the same concept of not eating the first piece of cake cuz it's Guru > > Dev's donchaknow.) > > > > Since even the most ancient cultures created moral structure, I'm > > inclined to think that it is impossible to avoid unless every single > > person is enlightened; even then, immorality will happen, but then, ya > > see, it's the fault of God if immorality appears -- as it did in even > > Sat Yuga where beings were pretty close to perfect and it's like a > > plague in today's yuga when almost every being is as sooted with > > grime as badly as the worst person was in the previous Yuga -- a > > guesstimate. Reading the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, I keep > seeing Bill > > Clinton described when it talks about the "future of Kali Yuga" when > > kings will routinely be scurrilous. > > > > Now, I promised Lurk I would cease my "most recent 'murderers' > > crusade," so in honor of that vow, I won't go into further into the > > immorality of our leaders, and for that matter, I'll trank down about > > the issues that I've embroiled myself within, here, with persons > > immorally leveraging age over youth for a chance to "hit that." > > Except for the previous sentence, ahem. > > > > That said, in general I think that the more a culture has spontaneous > > morality the better the society, but enforced morality quickly can > > become fascism, and that's what the scoundrels here most yelp about, > > cuz who can be a moral cop without having the wisdom of God? > > > > My Lutheran pastor once told me, "The ten commandments are written in > > the human heart." I think that's true. I think that TM's "take it > > easy" reflects a belief that we all know when we're pushing things > > beyond propriety and that that stresses the culture. I think > > Maharishi defined it as "don't do anything you know to be wrong." > > > > The edges of morality are where society unravels -- so often one good > > slip down the slope deserves another. Not that all "sins" are so > > egregious that the sinner cannot pull back from the slope, but testing > > the edge between right and wrong seems to be a sport most folks are > > good at. > > > > I cannot imagine any life without morals, and I've got a world class > > imagination. 'Course, someone less stressed than me might have an > > idea of an ideal, that's just a Sat Yuga memory, methinks -- nothing > > as grand as total freedom could last in this life for even a few > > seconds before the fist fights would break out. > > > > Edg > > > > > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends > > http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com > > > > > >
