Hi Mayka, I think we might have a misunderstanding here. My point is that how do we reconcile two opposing moral values when both sides believe their view is morally correct and the other side's is immoral? In my mind, moral values are culturally relative and there is no absolute morally correct position. For example, is killing a healthy newborn child moral or immoral? Mike.
----- Original Message ---- From: Mayka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, 9 October, 2008 23:18:51 Subject: [Zen] Re: Aging and Zen Hello Mike; What are you doing? Moral Values are not exactly the same as moralistic values. It seems to me that the only who understood that were the gays from Yale University!. A shame they're not on this website to ask them for a little support here. What you're describing are sick moralistic values. Did I not say before that moral is a double razor?. In the mind clean and pure as an innocent childlike, moral values are also clean. In a more poluted mind moral values are sick. Mayka --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com, mike brown <uerusuboyo@ ...> wrote: > > Hi Mayaka, > > If, as you say, all these people have moral values then why is there so much suffering and strife in the world? I would say exactly because people have moral values, or rather, opposing moral values. For example, on issues such as abortion, drug use, age of consent, homosexuality etc who determines what is morally correct? Corrupt, rich, white, hypocritical, male politicians do. We need laws, but laws shouldn't reflect the moral values of only a very small group in society who also have vested interests. Mike. > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Mayka <flordeloto@ ...> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com > Sent: Thursday, 9 October, 2008 16:51:30 > Subject: [Zen] Re: Aging and Zen > > > I also define moral as a code of conduct. It was that explained in a > post to Jack Master. There must have been an linguistic error here > from my side. And so I'll try again to explain it and be a little > bit more extensive. What you are explaining here about morality is > something moralistic. > > Moral is a kind of a double razor and depends how this is used can > have the effect of moralistic with narrow mind implications based in > a code of conduct followed strictly to the rule but lacking of real > insight by the person who follows it and not just that the person who > is a moralistic usually tries to impose his/her owns views to > others. In this case the moral that comes from a moralistic person > is boring. > > But there is a moral with a personal code set of conduct or > principles, coming from within oneself experience. It's a moral > developed by oneself alone and that not necesseraly goes with the > morality of others or society. > > A person with no moral values is a dangerous person. The Dalai Lama > has his moral values. Gandhi had his moral values. Thich Nhat Hanh > has his moral values. Martin Luther King Junior had his moral > values...All peacemakers of the world have had and have their own > moral values. A person without moral values is a person of not being > trusted. > > Thanks for posting > Mayka > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com, <BillSmart@ ..> wrote: > > > > Makya, > > > > My view of morals is the same as Margie's. I define 'morals' as a > code of > > conduct. This code can be very complex - as in Islamic Sharia Law > or the > > Jewish Talmud; or can be fairly short as in the Old Testament's 10 > > Commandments or the Buddhist 5 Precepts; or can be very simple as > in Jesus' > > teaching to 'Love one another'. More important to this discussion > is > > whether morals are thought to be absolute or relative. > > > > Most religions (all?) believe the discrimination between right and > wrong and > > therefore codes of conduct are ABSOLUTE. The code or list from > which the > > 'correct' action can be derived should apply to ALL situations and > most > > importantly to ALL people. What's right or wrong in all situations > and for > > all people. This makes it easy to judge the conduct of both > yourself and > > others. Since there are a lot of situations and a lot of people, > most > > religion's codes of conduct are very complex. > > > > Zen's perspective on the discrimination between right and wrong and > > therefore the selection of a 'correct' action is RELATIVE. > The 'correct' > > action depends the situation, and most importantly is determined by > each > > individual for themselves. What's right for you in a certain > situation > > might not be right in a different situation. What's right for you > in a > > certain situation might not be right for someone else in the same > situation. > > This makes it unnecessary to judge (after-the-fact) your own > conduct since > > your actions were completely determined by the situation at the > time of > > execution; and it is impossible (or at least useless) to try to > judge the > > conduct of others. This also means that zen cannot ascribe to any > formal > > code of conduct or morals. > > > > Hope this helps...Bill! > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com [mailto:Zen_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com] > On Behalf > > Of roloro1557 > > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:44 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Aging and Zen > > > > Mayka- > > > > Morals are just a set of arbitrary rules imposed by society, > culture, > > religion, etc. They are meaningless. They are empty concepts. And > they > > differ hugely from culture to culture. This creates nothing but > > endless arguments about whose morals are right and whose are wrong. > > > > Real morality is just doing what you know is right, it really is > that > > simple. > > > > Margie (roloro1557) > > >