Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Thunderbolts: Moral

It appears that Moral is a word which attracts a lot of misconceptions. One common misconception seems to imply that Moral has to do with a religious perspective. Quite to the contrary, Moral has no relation with Religion beyond that it ponders on the definitions of right conduct versus wrong conduct. Of course, Religion will always preach about the imperative need to follow rules allegedly handed down by the deity flavor of the day and right conduct becomes the blind adherence to those rules and wrong conduct is anything that appears to flaunt them.
We can see Moral as a set of principles which foundational support lays on the recognition of a consciousness which can differentiate actions and consequences. There is no Moral foundation if we don't learn to own our actions. When the game becomes a never ending search of excuses why the circumstances, them being social mores, other individuals, or material and social environment, are making us do whatever we do, we are abdicating any moral consideration and limiting it to a spurious judgment uttered for convenience. But Moral asks us more. Moral asks us to learn owning the consequences of our actions. Moral becomes then an art of foreseeing the flow of life and an exercise of perceptual acuity of chains of consequences in the long range. That's when utterances as the Golden Rule come into play.
Moral tell us that we need to learn to love others if we are to learn to love ourselves. Because everyone of us is reflected in the others. Moral tells us that we need to learn seeing the challenges and tribulations of others and find ways and means to help them to navigate those challenges and tribulations. Because if we are to navigate our challenges and tribulations, we are to do so only with the help of others; nobody is mighty enough to overcome life on its own. As a matter of record, we came to life by the action of others, our parents. But we can depart this life all on our own. It takes only to forget that we are part of a big LIFE and decide that we are the sole master of our own.
Moral tells us that disregarding the consequences of our actions is the most effective way to renounce to life and love altogether. And also tells us that there isn't lesser or mightier things, or living entities, and all roles are important in developing our own history. Moral tells us that nurturing is an imperative and also tells us that discriminating our world into good and bad is to destroy it.
In synthesis, Moral is Life in action, not blots on a piece of paper or scratches on the surface of a stone.

3 comments:

gnosticserenity said...

Namaste Frank, Morality is individual not a collective. It is often misinterpreted as a collective. It is personal and how we act toward others. I like what you wrote. Thanks. Love to you.

rommey said...

Elaine, what is individual is the development of the moral imperative. Which isn't the particular moral concept in itself. This last develops in the interaction of those individuals in the community setting. In that sense it is a product you may characterize as a collective. And as such it is subject to an evolutionary process. Changes which aren't disadvantageous to the community's life, might and will become the new moral concepts. Changes which are detrimental to the community life might survive for a while, but eventually die off replaced by other more successful moral concepts. What we see in evolutionary biology is reflected in the community's life and such reflection is focused exactly onto the moral concepts of the community. The same way as an individual biological specimen which otherwise can be considered healthy, might have in its body certain areas which are dead tissue (I know because I myself have some spots in my liver which are dead tissue product of an old infection from which I recovered --the infection afflicted my liver about forty years ago), the community might live and evolve successfully in spite of harboring in their midst some members who are morally dead… In this sense, what counts is the emergent overall attitude of the majority of the members predicated on their responses to the circumstances of the community. In other words, an individual in isolation (those who retreat to the mountain top or the inaccessible valley) have no opportunity to develop a moral concept just because there won't be interactions with other fellows to generate it. Interestingly enough, we can observe similar processes in other animal species, as a recent piece of news reveals an insight in the mores of the cheating cheetahs… caught by DNA analysis of the cubs…
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/6701515.stm)
More later...

gnosticserenity said...

Namaste Frank,I will have to meditate on this. I was raised with a morality which I rejected as harmful to the Self... I have had to reinvent morality through a cause and effect process... finding Truth along the way... not an easy task. LOL

Love to you.