the problem with morals...
when speaking of human rights, animal rights, reverance for life, or any other questions of moral beliefs, it is neccessary to ask a basic question. what sort of moral beliefs are we speaking of, and even more basic, what is our definition of a moral?
morals are oftenthought of in very abstract terms, sometimes as rules from a god (especially in western culture), or the rules of the society in which we live. contrary to what anyone may say, none of us see ourselves as immoral (or few of us, at least,)but we do obviously have a distinct problem when one persons idea of moral standards seems to clash with anothers. how then, can we argue anything of morals without first establishing some sort of common ground?
if our definition of morals is only a set of rules imposed upon us from an outside force, a common ground would become very difficult to find. unfortunately, most of us see things this way. often many of us grapple between what we WANT to do and between what is the "moral" choice. the "moral" choice becomes very abstract, and so all the less easy to follow. it often is backed up ony with the reasoning that somehow it is "the right thing", but that can become a very flimsy basis to make a choice, especially when a much more "urgent" need is pressing us the other way. often times the moral is backed with some sort of heavenly commandment, with some sort of reward or punishment, in its most extreme case catholicism's heaven and hell. even to believers, though, this must seem so distant, and it must seem so easy to ignore it, and for the majority of us who (with any sense) see this as old , ficticious superstition, there would seemimgly be no reason to pay the moral choice any heed. so it would therefor seem that morals are little but abstract ideas, holding us back from what we really "want" to do. I believe this is more or less true, although not in the way that it may seem. many of us see the world as bursting into bloodshed and violent destruction if we abondened an idea of morals. yet we all still cling to our moral systems, and the human world is in a state of violent disarray and discord, as it has been for millenium. why? and why has every culture of men that has ever existed had moral systems?
most of what is generally concieved of as being moral I would consider noble, most prominently the avoidance to violence. every culture ever has had rules prohibitting violence, yet violence occurs. you could say that it is because we are just unnoble violent creatures, but then, why do we keep writing these rules? we can say that the avoidance of violence is definitely a concept that is natural in all humans, for every culture has rules to make sure that violence is avoided. yet almost every culture has it's limitations on this, it's times when violence is considered accpetable. we all have laws prohibitting the murder of humans, for instance, but the murder of animals is a completely different matter. our moral systems seem to be more than silent on the matter, they often regard the killing of animals as not only acceptable, but noble (the same can be said of other "acceptable" forms of violence, such as law enforcement,war,etc.), and in our own culture, those of us who practice (or attempt to practice) nonviolence in a complete state are often thought of as being immoral! it seems a double standard, and not only in a logical sense. the idea that any of us can be immoral by not hurting others seems innately wrong, perhaps because of an innate repulsion to violence. a buddhist saying goes "it is easy to view the innate goodness of humans. in a crowded area, simply drop a baby into a well." every single one of us, if taken off gaurd by the act, will react the exact same way. gasp!!!!!!!!! before reason can set in, before a greedy state of mind can rejoice over becoming the direct hier or inheritor or before a jaded state of mind can revl in the violence, first the subconsious mind reacts. in terror.
the subconscious mind does not see the distinctions that the conscious mind often is trained to. we may agrue with morals and numbers and abstract ideas that killing an animal is not the same as killing a person, but the subconscious mind does not care. to it, violence is violence. (to see how little our subconscious minds make judgements and distinctions, think of a dream. in a moment things such as the person you are speaking with, the place you are in, even who YOU are switch multiple times, in seemimgly random and umreasonable ways...) the idea that a man can sit in a lab poisoning and tormenting caged animals all day and then come home and show the utmost in respect and compassion towards his wife and kids seems to me absurd. in many cases such as these, our moral systems seem to directly get in the way of our own most compassionate instincts. again another question, why?
most of us are quite miserable. we attempt to become a part of the society and culture in which we are born, looking for acceptance in others not for who we are, but in what we feel they want us to be. but just what are we? past the acculturation, underneath what we learn from our societies (you could perhaps call it brainwashing), much deeper than the masks we wear and the person we try to be, there is much more. it takes self exploration to finmd what is underneath, but we can look to certain human advancements to help guide the way. if we do attempt to dig underneath all the garbage covering not only ourselves but our sate of minds, our sysyems of living we find certain uncanny similarities. both modern physicists and ancient (as well as modern, of course) spiritual philosophers have come to conclusions, things we all feel but sometimes can hardly explain. simply put, everything that may seem so unconnected really isn't, but is instead completely and utterly connected. the distinctions and barriers and divisions are just products of a discriminating state of mind, and are not real in and of themselves. all that is real is the love we feel, the intricate and infinite connection which we all are. nothing exists except in its relationship with something else could be a credo of modern particle physics(see the section in magicalstates on the new physics for more.) if one part of the connection is hurt, the whole and therefore every facet and ripple feels it as well. it is for this reason that the subconsious mind sees things the way it does. it sees things the way they are.
real happiness can never come from anything but wholeness (the root of the word whole, hol, is latin, also the root of the words healt, holistic, and holiness.) when we see divisions as anymore than temporary tendencies, divisions between you and me, outside and in, then our inner wholeness and purity of ethics is doubted and the gap is often filled with an abstraction, a moral code. violence is not wrong because some outside moral imposed upon us says it is so, or because some diety says it is so. it is wrong for one because hurting one part of the whole hurts the whole, violence leads to more violence, a lesson especially urgent in this nuclear age where one small international conflict could bring about the destruction of the human race. it is wrong because it is ourself we are hurting. it is wrong because it is not in our truest nature to hurt. as we evolve consciously and our ignorances are dissolved, moral systems must as well, to make way for our own inner guidance. in the tao te ching lau tzu tells us
people in need of ruling turn to governments
people in need of spirituality turn to religion
people in need of guidance turn to morals
we need turn nowhere but in, for all we need is contained inside. because all that is is contained inside.
contents...