Morality tends to be a contentious issue and this board is no exception. Opinions tend to fall into two camps: the relative and the absolute. Critics of the absolute point to great divergence of moral values held across time and place and the atrocities perpetrated by 'absolutists' such as suicide bombers while relative skeptics see moral relativism as an anarchic 'anything goes' philosophy. But the question I would like to put to the board is what would a new PUL-centred morality look like? How would it change the way we view such current moral 'hot potatoes' such as abortion and euthanasia ?

I figure the bottom line is whether or not a person (or other conscious being) is treated in a way that accounts for its welfare.

A lady once told me that bullfighting is okay because bullfighting is cultural. Therefore, the right or wrongness of this act is relative.

If there was a way to ask a bull that was tortured during a bullfight how he feels about the matter he would probably say that the cultural/relative thing is nothing but human shi_ (as opposed to B.S.).

About 6 years ago I went to Spain with some family members. One day some of these members including my 2 nieces went to see the bullfights. They left early because my nieces didn't like what they were seeing and started crying. I don't believe there was anything relative about their response. They witnessed a cruel activity and responded accordingly.

I'll take my nieces heart-based response to what they saw over somebody's intellect-based justifications any day of the week.

 

I share an abhorrence of bull-fighting but I do love to fish.If I'm consistent should'nt I abhor fishing also, where even though my object is not to inflict pain on the fish some inadvertent suffering must result ? In a PUL-based morality should'nt all caused suffering go, including using animals for food /entertainment ?

I don't want to tell other people what to eat. It does annoy me when people catch fish and then throw them back in the water. Some of these people say that the hooks don't hurt the fish.

It isn't as if they actually know that hooks don't hurt fish. It is more of a matter of what they choose to believe so they can keep entertaining themselves through fishing.

I wonder if fish that are hooked and then thrown back in the water become traumatized in some way. They are reluctant to eat the food they see because they are afraid to get hooked again.

'It does annoy me when people catch fish and then throw them back in the water' : but what about even if we keep them do we need to eat fish flesh at all if there are other non-conscious alternatives ? The Indian religion Jainism for example, takes non-violence to such a degree that followers may wear face masks to prevent insects being inadvertently consumed or refrain from eating root vegetables because the plant is in contact with soil and may contain micro-organisms !

A morality based on love or PUL is not something new; it is what the Judeo-Christian faith is supposed to be about.  The two main tenets of faith that ES hears from departed people are: to love God and to love other people. 

In doing so, in my mind it is all about intent.  It is not a contest to see who can consciously step through the mine-field of life without unwittingly injuring any plant or animal.  We see, in nature, the most horrific scenes of life and death played out in the meadows and fields.  Do we associate evil with the spider who consumes the insect, or the coyote who eats the chipmunk?  Perhaps some do.  But the intent there is to do what they naturally do.

The earth-life system is in flux.  Life and death ebb and flow like a tide.  Now while I agree with not deliberately harming another, be it a man or an animal,  I disagree that common interactions with that we should feel guilty if we have to use pest control in one instance to rid a home of rats, or if we are driving and don't see an animal that we inadvertently run over that we are somehow damned for it.

Love is thought and action directed by loving intent.  The specifics of earthly life matter less.  What is the intention behind your actions?  If you breathe in an insect, there was obviously no intent to harm.  Further, the rest of the physical world is one of something eating and another thing doing the eating.  The frog flicks its tongue out at the insect.  It is not morally wrong.  It simply is. 

I would like to become a vegan for numerous reasons.   However, I believe that I can maintain a loving intent to others, and to God without doing so.  This is the basis of blessing and giving thanks for your meal that has entered into many religions. 

In brief then, I don't believe that PUL is a new morality; it is the only true morality, created by intent, thought and action.  It does set up a "right" and "wrong" action though - right being that which is the most loving action or response in a given situation.  This is why I personally abhor the "do as thou will" moral relativism that states that "everything is equally valid."   No, it isn't.  If love or PUL is our driving force, there is a true "good" and a true "evil," even if we have infinite time in spirit to explore the differences. 


Matthew

Heisenberg69,
"But the question I would like to put to the board is what would a new PUL-centred morality look like? How would it change the way we view such current moral 'hot potatoes' such as abortion and euthanasia?"

A morality that centres around an abbreviation that has unconditional as a part of it, then anything goes, simple as that. If there are any conditions then that particular love is conditional love, pure conditional love or partly conditional love. PCL? - Good intentions are drawn to concepts that at least appear good and kind on the surface. Goes to say that good intentions don't automatically lead to good results.

Hi Dave,

I don't think is it possible in all practicality to have a PUL-based morality in a physical realm such as ours where physical pain and suffering can be completely eliminated. As sentient beings the likelihood of pain and suffering will always exist because that is part of our built in feedback mechanism in the "push" to grow towards a consciousness of PUL. Like little worker bees, we, in the form of sentient beings, are in the process of evolving consciousness, and as such, I think the best we can do is strive to develop a moral code that evolves over time towards the aspiration of PUL as an ideal.

In another thread of yours that I read, but don't recall the title, you discussed a book where the author demonstrated how humanity has evolved over the past 2,000 or so years and despite what all the doomsayers of today have to say, morality has and is evolving for the betterment of human consciousness demonstrated and expressed by the resulting behavioral changes described in the book. That tells me that what we are doing is working even though it has been and will most likely continue to always be a struggle.

First of all, any moral code of conduct that presents any meaningful truth has to apply to all sentient beings equally as well as universally, regardless of cultural background. While we can discuss individual issues such as abortion, euthanasia, etc., I don't think any conclusions can be drawn without first defining a foundation for morality that applies to everyone personally.

As in Matthew's examples, any truthful and significant morality must be defined by the intent that directs an action. Any action that is honestly generated by an intent of loving and caring is moral, while the lack of love and caring of an intent causes one's actions to be immoral. Loving intent must be defined as an individual's attempt to act in a way that considers the overall best interest of all entities in a way that helps to maintain or improve the mental, emotional and physical wellbeing of others. Immorality, on the other hand stems from negligence, carelessness, and harmful intent.

Kathy

recoverer wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 9:25pm:

I don't want to tell other people what to eat. It does annoy me when people catch fish and then throw them back in the water. Some of these people say that the hooks don't hurt the fish. It isn't as if they actually know that hooks don't hurt fish. It is more of a matter of what they choose to believe so they can keep entertaining themselves through fishing. I wonder if fish that are hooked and then thrown back in the water become traumatized in some way. They are reluctant to eat the food they see because they are afraid to get hooked again.

Jesus ate fish and meat, and in the new testament bible he(or God)instructs Peter that it's alright to kill animals and to eat their flesh. In the old testament, God instructs that it's alright to eat animals(except pork)etc. Are God and Jesus then lower in PUL than new age book thumping vegetarians, or religious vegetarians such as Buddhists or Hindus etc?

Due to the delicate emotional natures of some, do we now categorize meat eaters as being of lower morality, less loving, and having less PUL?

Where in any of the great religions of the world does it say that God or any of his other higher beings forbids us to eat animals?

Do religious or new age vegetarians, when they die, bypass all the afterlife areas that the vast majority of us transcend too, pick up their shining white robes and be spirited to higher heavens to meet their masters, where they are taught all the mysteries of the cosmos?   

Are we going to see a new movie in future physical earth; "Planet of the Meat Eaters - Rise of the Vegetarians."

[This post may disappear into the vapors of cyberspace]



   



 

    

KarmaLars:

I don't have a response to what you wrote because I don't want to turn this into a "eat meat or not eat meat discussion" because I don't believe that was Heisenberg's reason for starting this thread.

Of course people make their own choice on whether they eat meat or not. I started this thread as a kind of thought experiment on how things would change if PUL were to become the dominant paradigm i.e what kind of a world would we live in. It might give us a clue what awaits humanity in the future.

I'm not a vegetarian but the vegetarians that I know are not crusaders by any means. I have however met meat eaters who seem to take a personal affront when they come across people who choose not to eat meat.Certainly I would say from an ecological perspective vegetarianism has  got a lot going for it because animals are inefficient at converting energy into edible biomass.

Mathew- I think all religions in their highest vision espouse unconditional love but you have to admit that in a historical sense they have a pretty lousy track record of demonstrating it ! I agree with you that intent is key.

Volu - I agree with you that unconditional is the operative word. but does that mean anything goes ? To give an example: I love my son and whatever he chose to do in his life he would still be my son. But if he became a drug runner does that mean drug running is something I have to like and approve of ? No it just means that my love for him is not conditional on him having to do anything to get it.

Kathy- The book was 'the Better Angels of Our Nature' by Steven Pinker." Like little worker bees, we, in the form of sentient beings, are in the process of evolving consciousness, and as such, I think the best we can do is strive to develop a moral code that evolves over time towards the aspiration of PUL as an ideal.".That's a nice way of expressing it.
"Immorality, on the other hand stems from negligence, carelessness, and harmful intent." But  it has'nt always been seen that way, in the past immorality would have been more about 'breaking the rules' !

I like this idea of expressing PUL constantly.

As for morality, lately I've been struggling with it as  see it as a human invention, and not as a universal one. i.e. the creative forces in wider reality didnt invent it, and the possibility that they are amoral.

Sanatogen-

I struggle with morality too and it seems to me that many of society's laws have little to do with love and lots to do with religious moralising. For example, personally speaking, I think society's rules on prostitution and personal drug use AKA 'The War on Drugs' have done a great deal of harm.This is why I often do the thought experiment where I try and envisage how a more enlightened world would handle these things.

KarmaLars wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 3:54pm:

Jesus ate fish and meat, and in the new testament bible he(or God)instructs Peter that it's alright to kill animals and to eat their flesh. In the old testament, God instructs that it's alright to eat animals(except pork)etc. Are God and Jesus then lower in PUL than new age book thumping vegetarians, or religious vegetarians such as Buddhists or Hindus etc? Due to the delicate emotional natures of some, do we now categorize meat eaters as being of lower morality, less loving, and having less PUL? Where in any of the great religions of the world does it say that God or any of his other higher beings forbids us to eat animals? Do religious or new age vegetarians, when they die, bypass all the afterlife areas that the vast majority of us transcend too, pick up their shining white robes and be spirited to higher heavens to meet their masters, where they are taught all the mysteries of the cosmos?    Are we going to see a new movie in future physical earth; "Planet of the Meat Eaters - Rise of the Vegetarians." [This post may disappear into the vapors of cyberspace]

     I think you are somewhat correct KarmaLars, in that i do think that the younger Yeshua ate fish occasionally.   However, it's also clear to me that latter Yeshua DIDN'T EAT AT ALL.   In fact, if you read the N.T., you will see that at one point the disciples of this Teacher insistently asked and told him, Master why don't you eat, you need to eat. 

What was his reply, "I have food you don't know about." 

   Meaning, at that point, he was SO intune with PUL Consciousness that it kept his body alive and healthy without necessity of that called material food.  He lived off the food of Love.

Hmmm...  reminds me of Bob Monroe's "He/She" character.  Bob to "He/She", *but where do you eat and sleep?* 

  He/She to Bob, "Oh, i gave those up years ago." 

  So, perhaps your "point" is somewhat moot within a larger perspective and bigger picture.  Maybe one of the reasons that Yeshua and He/She stopped eating altogether was because they didn't want to contribute to the suffering of animals, because to some extent it may have kept their bodies somewhat stuck within earthly energies, and mostly because they just out grew the necessity...  ???

   Btw, you are always such pleasant and happy chap here, always so helpful.  Thanks for the apology btw for my Cycles of Change etc. thread and accusing me of being a liar and having that plainly pointed out as not true by another.  A real man would have apologized for such clear and proven slander. 

   I can't help but notice that you are someone who only posts once in a great while and solely for the purpose it seems to disparage and make fun of others and their beliefs and ways.

  Is it "fun" or something?  If you think us, or some of us as crazy and imbalanced, shouldn't you have compassion for us because who really *chooses* to be crazy and imbalanced?    Shouldn't you want to help us, and not add stress to our condition?   

  Or maybe you are more acting out of your own suffering and unhappiness? 

  And isn't that why Yeshua, The Teacher said so long ago, "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."   We are always wounding others out of our suffering.  But at least in your case, you seem sincere in this process, and i have much more patience with those who are sincere in their negativity than those who are very insincere in their negativity.

sanatogen wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 5:38am:

I like this idea of expressing PUL constantly. As for morality, lately I've been struggling with it as  see it as a human invention, and not as a universal one. i.e. the creative forces in wider reality didnt invent it, and the possibility that they are amoral.

  Me too! 

  Morality is to some extent made up by society.  However, generally speaking, much of morality is at it's core based on our inner, though relatively unconscious, knowingness of the reality of Oneness and PUL.

  I recently went to a women's rights rally here in VA where i live.  VA is trying to go back to the stone age it seems with some of it's laws in telling a woman what it can and cannot do with her own body.  Contraception itself may eventually become a target based on these forming laws.

Religious and dogmatic fanaticism is involved with this.  I went there to show my support for those who are against this rather immoral push of beliefs onto others, yet this immorality is disguised in the guise of morality.   Not to say this side doesn't have some point, they do, but they should not try to so force others to conform.

True morality considers the freewill of others, and acts from the Golden Rule in spontaneous way and healthy way, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." 

   Real morality is both relative and absolute at the same time!   It's based on the absolute nature of PUL being the foundation of Creation, but it applies relatively to individuals in their individual and different growth back to that Oneness and PUL Consciousness. 

   If one wants to know what true morality is, at it's purest and most distilled essence, then look no further than the example of Yeshua without any of the religious dogma, and other unnecessary and limiting parts.

This was Emmanuel in the flesh. 

   

Quote:

"Immorality, on the other hand stems from negligence, carelessness, and harmful intent." But  it has'nt always been seen that way, in the past immorality would have been more about 'breaking the rules' !

Yes, I think even now immorality is seen by many to be about as you mentioned, breaking the rules.  However, morality is a personal attribute. Since there are many varying actions that can be taken in any given situation directed by a moral intent, it can be difficult to determine someone's intent based on a resulting action. So arguments can follow including situations where a person is deceiving their self and/or others as to the truthfulness of their intent. One's true intent will always produce an imprecise moral judgment.

In order to resolve disputes society institutes rules/laws and a governing process to the best of its ability. Granted laws that have been and continue to be enacted don't always represent moral values and should be rewritten if out of date or eliminated if an unethical principle is being served. So many of people's values and societie's resulting laws do seem to be skewed toward religious and cultural bias where dogma and belief systems taint what is thought of as moral or immoral. 

The best we can do is keep on striving to make this world a better environment to learn and grow in. It's a slow process, but I think for the most part we are evolving in the right direction. As we seek to improve our self by attempting to make loving, caring decisions throughout our daily interactions with people, we can only help to change the quality of consciousness.  Our own, as well as that of society as a whole.

Kathy

heisenberg69,
"I agree with you that unconditional is the operative word. but does that mean anything goes ? To give an example: I love my son and whatever he chose to do in his life he would still be my son. But if he became a drug runner does that mean drug running is something I have to like and approve of ? No it just means that my love for him is not conditional on him having to do anything to get it."

Your example is someone you probably have spent lots of time with, you've gotten to know him or want to know him because 'it's my flesh and blood', lots of interaction going back and forth, which means you've both done something to establish love. And running drugs isn't that much of a challenge for the whole idea of loving someone no matter what.

If you've got to castrate someone because of how they dress, speak, what they read, and so on, then there are conditions placed upon someone until they conform and unconditional love suddenly has fertile grounds to grow in.

Volu,


Defining love in terms of conditions or no conditions is a matter of semantics.  Love is a feeling, and a state of mind or being.  So yes, I can love someone but not support their position as a drug runner.  If you then say that is conditional love, I would answer - no, not really.

The love is a force, a feeling.  It is not something you can click a button for.  Thus, words fail to define it, even if you can semntically break it down to unconditional vs. conditional.  Conditional love isn't really love at all.  If one feels love as a force and expresses it to another, that love is still there whether or not the other person acts lovingly back toward us.

Jesus advised us if struck on one cheek to offer the other one.  He did this to show us how love responds to one who is unloving (not to truly say in all circumstances act this way). 

I think some on the board are confusing love with judgement and action.  Just because you feel and express love doesn't mean that you make no judgements and take no actions at all (otherwise we'd be sitting around as statues all day long). 

So for me at least, this dissection of conditional vs. unconditonal has no real meaning.  If one acts unlovingly under certain conditions then true love is not being expressed.  If one acts to prevent violence or harm, that is a different story entirely.

M

Related to those protestors in Virginia Justin spoke of, several years ago the issue of gay marriage came up in California and people were allowed to vote about it. Before the vote took place a bunch of Christian groups stood on the street and held up signs that opposed gay marriage. They stood there as if they were representing some goodness and higher morality and waited for people to honk their horns.

I'm not gay, but I became incredibly annoyed with them. Even though my parents were with me on one occasion I stopped my car, opened my window and yelled, "Jesus said to love your neighbors as yourselves. Is this what you are doing you hypocrits?"

I felt really annoyed because I felt like they were being disrespectful towards people who are homosexual. What right do they have to tell other people who they can or can't love? That saving the sacredness of marriage business is a bunch of BS.  With all of the infidelity, domestic violence and divorce that has and continues to take  place the supposed sanctity of marriage would've been ruined years ago--if it could be ruined. Not that gay marriage can ruin it.

As far as I'm concerned the people who bring up that sanctity of marriage business are lying. If they were truthful they would say that they are afraid to question anything the Bible says (except when it benefits them personally), and therefore believe they are standing up for God's truth because supposedly God hates homosexuals, and blah, blah, blah.

Another thing that really bugged me about these protestors is that with all of the bad things that happens in this World the gay vote issue is the only issue that stirred them to go out on the streets and protest.

My guess is that if Jesus was around such protestors he would've turned over their tables and given them a good tongue lashing.

M,

I agree about love not being something you can click a button for, yet adding pure and unconditional act as buttons set up to be pushed, or else it's simply love. Words are too small boxes to hold love, but adding more words makes those cramped boxed more cramped. Dissection of conditional, unconditional, or somewhere in between, is natural for me when something is stated to be unconditional.

Volu-

Your example is someone you probably have spent lots of time with, you've gotten to know him or want to know him because 'it's my flesh and blood', lots of interaction going back and forth, which means you've both done something to establish love. And running drugs isn't that much of a challenge for the whole idea of loving someone no matter what.

If you've got to castrate someone because of how they dress, speak, what they read, and so on, then there are conditions placed upon someone until they conform and unconditional love suddenly has fertile grounds to grow in.

In my drug runner example I think it is a loving responce not to want my son to have a premature death or a lengthy spell in prison. To this end I would advise him of the pitfalls and dangers of his chosen profession and try to find him alternatives. That said he is an adult and he has to make those choices for himself (and live with the consequences).Whatever his choice my love would remain. But you are right he is 'flesh and blood' and I imagine more evolved ,expansive people than me feel that way about the whole of creation ...

I hesitate to post this link... but it does seem to fit the topic being discussed here.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/21/georgia-democrats-to-propose-limitations-on-vasectomies-for-men/

Edit: All of my post didn't get copied when I went to paste it. I didn't save it on my computer, but the jest of it was how sad it is when our law makers take a serious issue and treat it like this instead of exploring all the possible best interests of people facing a decision regarding abortion.

Darn Democrats! They remind me of those darn Republicans. :)


Lights of Love wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 6:31pm:

I hesitate to post this link... but it does seem to fit the topic being discussed here. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/21/georgia-democrats-to-propose-limitations-on-vasectomies-for-men/ Edit: All of my post didn't get copied when I went to paste it. I didn't save it on my computer, but the jest of it was how sad it is when our law makers take a serious issue and treat it like this instead of exploring all the possible best interests of people facing a decision regarding abortion.

I find moral issues such as abortion and euthanasia real minefields but I'm not sure if even a PUL-based morality can give definitive answers- more like a general approach to adopt. For example some pro-choice campaigners say that its a simple case of a woman's right over her own body and a foetus is part of her own body until birth. But if that were true there would be presumably no problem about on-demand abortions up to term  (40 weeks) ! At the other extreme some pro-life campaigners are against abortions even in cases such as rape or underage. A veritable minefield indeed ....

heisenberg69 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 4:29am:

I find moral issues such as abortion and euthanasia real minefields but I'm not sure if even a PUL-based morality can give definitive answers- more like a general approach to adopt. For example some pro-choice campaigners say that its a simple case of a woman's right over her own body and a foetus is part of her own body until birth. But if that were true there would be presumably no problem about on-demand abortions up to term  (40 weeks) ! At the other extreme some pro-life campaigners are against abortions even in cases such as rape or underage. A veritable minefield indeed ....

  Obviously from my last post, i lean much more strongly to the pro choice in this, but i agree it's a difficult issue, and really in things like this--one size does not fit all.  However, ultimately, other's beliefs should not be so forced onto others.  It's one thing to debate, to disagree, etc., it's a whole other to make laws based on one groups beliefs. 

  This is why at forums, i've almost never reported a post or fellow member to any "authorities" (unless their obviously, blatantly a spammer type or what not).  If i have an issue, i bring it up with them. 

  Re: the pro choice or pro life issue, besides the free-will issue, which to me is the most important and over riding one, there are other things that make me lean in the pro choice area.  My Mother was an above average psychic person.   During my birth, she saw a Light descend into my body some minutes after the body was birthed and out into the world. 

   So while there was general 'life' in the body before then (something we could call "Spirit"), what made it a real, living human--my individuated Consciousness, was not more integrated with the body until actual birth. 

  So, the pro-lifers may be lacking some information and perspective in all this.

  Also, a thought has occurred to me of a compromise for both sides and camps.  I've considered that maybe it would be wise to legally allow up to 3 legal and health care aided abortions.   That way you would sort of satisfy the strongly pro-choice side who argues abortion for rapes, extreme poverty, extreme health issues, etc. 

  And then you would also somewhat satisfy those who think that if abortion was totally legal, that some very irresponsible women would be having them left and right in living their irresponsible lifestyles and killing human life forms.  Granted most of these don't understand that the huge majority of women do not lightly get an abortion, and it would be a rare woman indeed who would have multiple over  periods of time.

   Re: the link that Kathy shared, wow!  I would have never thought that Democrats would push for something like that, it does seem very "Republican" in nature.

If our purpose is to evolve consciousness toward PUL, I think there will always be a range of people that hold beliefs from one extreme to the other for each of us to explore and from which choices can be made. Where lawmakers fail is when they fight for their own beliefs or those of their supporters, rather than gathering as much knowledge, understanding and experience (wisdom) as they possibly can before making decisions. Laws governing abortion and other "hot topic" issues can be written in ways that provide for both moral and immoral intentions, though there will most likely always be disagreement.

Even though the one's proposing those bills in the link aren't really serious, except to point out to men, as the majority of lawmakers, that they wouldn't want their bodies and what they could or could not do with them dictated by law, this is an issue that seriously effects people's lives. Abortion and other hot topic issues can be either moral or immoral depending upon intent and any law that is fair would at least attempt take that into consideration.

heisenberg69,
"Whatever his choice my love would remain."

I doubt whatever when there are extreme choices possible, but it's awesome to have someone(s) one loves strongly. Is the example a current reality?

Regarding the abortion issue the debate is that somewhere between 0 and 40 weeks the embryo/foetus changes from being part of the woman's body to being an entity in its own right. But I agree that one size certainly does not fit all. I think that one of the problems of absolute moralism - is that it does'nt reflect the nuances of each individual case. I therefore welcome the move from RULe-based to PUL-based morality (sorry for the pun !).

I doubt whatever when there are extreme choices possible, but it's awesome to have someone(s) one loves strongly. Is the example a current reality? Yes Volu.