New.morn, Would you please repeat your post.??
"new.morning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 16:35:41 -0000
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
>
> Can you define "wrong action"?
>
> I suggest that perhaps the underlying premise is hollow -- how can one
> act "wrongly"? Wrong is relative to any number of moral codes. I
> suggest, for sake of discussion, that there is no absolute right or
> wrong. There is only action and its consequences.
>
> Due to painful consequences some chose not to do somethings. Due to
> happy consequences some chose to do other things. Where is the right
> and wrong?
>
> In this context, "right" differs from correct. 2 + 2 = 4 ("or whatever
> your want it to be sir" if your are corporate accountant). 4 is the
> correct answer. However, 4 is not "right" in a moral sense.
>
> In the mega-Costco of life,"Take what you want, but pay the price"n
>
> Another potentially false premise of the question is free-will. (And
> the absence of free-will does not require or imply determinism as the
> sole alternative. ) If you don't control or initiate thoughts, and
> action stems from thoughts, where is the free will. I suggest all
> action is a set of 500-layer deep learned responses to various
> situations. No volition. One can only do what they have learned -- and
> for some innovation is one of those things.
>
> And of course the third premise I challenge is the concept and label
> of enlightenment. Some people are brighter, shinier, clearer than
> others. Some are all of this is some areas of life, but are in
> darkness in other areas. The label of enlightenment is a one big MF --
> a bill of goods sold to the naive.
>
> So ... "enlightenment is a state in which the enlightened can do no
> wrong" -- hmmm, my take on your question is: a bogus conceptual state
> in which the deluded who have no real volition appear to act and other
> deluded ones falsely categorize those actions as right and wrong.
Jason <jedi_spock@ ...> wrote:
>
> Morals are relative. They change from time to time.
>
> Ethics are eternal and absolute. They never change.
>
> Actions that bring suffering to others are "wrong"
>
> Actions that bring happiness to others are "right"
>
> Hindu philosophy calls those two actions as Shreyas that
bring happiness and Preyas that bring suffering.
>
