morality within evolution

[alexa]

Originally Posted by Lady_Selune

I believe compassion is soemthing that everyone is born with. I also beleive that it is something that can be burned out of you if you let it. You can become jaded, unwilling to feel compassion or even have deaded you ear to its call. Once you have done that you lose the ability to truly respect or love anything else. Why? Because again, compassion is what gives you the ability to truly see what the other is.

I am not sure everybody is born with compassion. You have to be born with an "old" soul or to live difficult experiences to feel compassion for another being.

I do not believe Bundy felt any kind of compassion for his victimes. Rollins is a psychopath, so I do not think compassion means the same thing for him as for a normal person.

It is also a difference in belief systems. My path does not teach love, it teaches compassion and from that choice. My belief tells me that I may do as I will, rather it be good or bad, I am the one in the end that will answer for what I have done, no one else. It is my choice.

I agree.

[lunamoth]

Related tp Alexa's last post (edit--not the last post, but #284). I, too, was using morality to mean adherance to actions that are generally understood to be good, or at least not intentionally harmful, for those around you. Going by LS's descriptions, I would not say that Bundy acted with morality, and if he was not amoral (lacking moral sensibility), then he certainly was immoral rather than moral. Rollins' sounds like he was amoral--incapable of distinguishing right from wrong. If Rollins' beliefs and actions were only a mirror of those around him, plus an instinctual response to stop the source of the pain from wherever it is perceived, then he did not have his own sense of morality.

It's hard to believe that any human being could be truely amoral and functioning independently in society. Maybe Rollins had a kind of immature morality, related to the immature development of his intellect. This kind of stuff is way beyond my expertise or even casual knowledge, but I thought that the death penelty could not be invoked for crimes committed by persons who did not understand that what they did was wrong.

P.S. Here I am using morality in the conventional sense, the adherence to right and wrong as it is accepted by society. As for my idea of the universal morality of Love in this picture, I would say that it is hidden under a basket or obscured in the cases of the killers. And as for our compassion for them, well, that's where the tension is in play. Easier for me than for the families of their victims.

[Lady_Selune]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Dear Lady Selune,

Great post! And welcome to CR and this thread. Hope you are able to stay around for more of this and other conversations.

Thanks for the warm welcome. I do think I will be sticking around here awhile. I find the dicussions to be quite interesting.

Ok, now that you have put the child thing in a different light I do agree.

[Lady_Selune]

Originally Posted by alexa

Dear Juan,

Do you realize you have offered me your friend, Lady_Selune as an ally ? You remember I have taken the earth based religions for myself ? I knew since the beginning I could read as many books as I wanted to, but I'll never understood the inside knowledge, as I wasn't trained for. So, I bless a shaman's presence here, especially if we are talking about a friend, too.

Why thank you, that is very kind of you. Feel free to e-mail me with any questions that you have and I will endeavor to answer them. I can't promise that I have all the answers, but I can promise that if I don't have the answer I most likely know someone that does. =)

[Lady_Selune]

Originally Posted by alexa

I am not sure everybody is born with compassion. You have to be born with an "old" soul or to live difficult experiences to feel compassion for another being.

Interesting, I would say its sort of the opposite way around on this one. I think everyone is born with compassion but the difficult experiences in thier lives can burn it out of them or cause it to be hidden very deeply.

Originally Posted by alexa

I do not believe Bundy felt any kind of compassion for his victimes. Rollins is a psychopath, so I do not think compassion means the same thing for him as for a normal person.

I agree with you Bundy did not feel compassion for his victims. He did feel a gerat deal fo compassion for his mother and often expressed worry that she would not be taken care of when he was gone.

I totally disagree with you about Rollins (and this one might actually be my fault) He is mentally retarded. He has perhaps the intellectual level of a 10 year old. But his emotionally level is more like an infant really. It appears to me after intervewing him that he has a very strong sense of others but also seeks to please those others in any way he can. The problem here is he does not have a childs body, he is a very large man. When a child would throw a temper tantum no one is usually hurt, if Rollins did it, well someone would clearly be hurt. Although surprisingly given how many years he has been locked up now there are no recorded incidents of him every displaying temper.

[Lady_Selune]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Related tp Alexa's last post (edit--not the last post, but #284). I, too, was using morality to mean adherance to actions that are generally understood to be good, or at least not intentionally harmful, for those around you. Going by LS's descriptions, I would not say that Bundy acted with morality, and if he was not amoral (lacking moral sensibility), then he certainly was immoral rather than moral. Rollins' sounds like he was amoral--incapable of distinguishing right from wrong. If Rollins' beliefs and actions were only a mirror of those around him, plus an instinctual response to stop the source of the pain from wherever it is perceived, then he did not have his own sense of morality.

hehe, ok, let me explain how I view morality and it might help clear this up a bit.

1. moralilty is what I beleive is right and wrong AND making the choice to do what is right.

2. I do not apply my morality to others as I have no right to do so.

3. I accept that I might not always agree with others morality. (In this case just as horrible as I see Bundy's set of morals to be I find people in everday life that have not gone out and killed people like he did but thought the choices they make (given thier morality) have allow thousands to die in thier name or injury the Mother to a point where she can not recover)

3. I agree that as a society we must have law. Our law most times reflects our morality (even in the cases where it just simply goes to far).

Therefore, even though I don't agree with Bundy's morality, I know and accept that he has morality. It is just not the type of thing I can readily understand as I have never felt myself superior to those around me. More importantly I have never felt so superior to anything around me that I felt that gave me the right to do with thier lives as I willed.

Ted once asked me why I toleranted those around me at the time. Before I could answer he continued with what he was saying (he really did love the sound of his own voice). What he said gave me a look into him that chilled me, he said that he could see that I was intellectually superior to those around me and could not understand why I didn't just use them to get what I wanted in life. Of course he went on to explain to me what he thought I wanted (or at least should want given the fact that he beleived me to be intellectually superior) My point here is that Ted did not beleive that killing those girls was wrong, he truly believed that he had a right to do it.

So even though I don't like his set of morals I can not say that mine are better then his. He made the choice in his life what was going to be good and bad to him. He knew in making those choices that society did not support them, but he chose them anyways. The fact is that in another time and place he would have not been doing anything wrong. Had he been a king a thousand years ago, it would have been expected that he would use his subjects as he seen fit to do. No wait, if he had simply been in another country and held a postion of power there his actions might not have been seen as all that bad.

It is exteremly dangerous I beleive to assume that there are moral and amoral people. I personally do not favor using any type of labels to begin with, but in this case the question is begged, does that make me amoral because my morals are different from yous? (and no, I don't beleive in killing people for pleasure, but I am tryign to make a point here )

Originally Posted by lunamoth

It's hard to believe that any human being could be truely amoral and functioning independently in society. Maybe Rollins had a kind of immature morality, related to the immature development of his intellect. This kind of stuff is way beyond my expertise or even casual knowledge, but I thought that the death penelty could not be invoked for crimes committed by persons who did not understand that what they did was wrong.

To be honest, Rollin's case is why beyond my experience as well. I can only go by my expereinces with him and what I seen happen to him. As far as the legal side of it, his attorny did his best to one get the trial moved from the local city, since this is where all the murders took place, when that failed, he also tried to get Danny declared incompetent to stand trial. He had a lot of doctors that agreed with him but what it all came down to was that the girls and one of the guys that was murdered all came from very weathly families. They wanted his blood in return for the taking of thier childrens blood, in a sense I do not fault them at all. I know Danny killed those people, I have no doubt in my mind of that, I also know he was lead to do so. Either way it does not matter, Danny will pay for his "sins" with his own life.

Now here is the part that gets me in trouble (and beleive me I would never speak of these things in public where I live, it would just not be wise to do so). I feel a great deal of compassion for Danny, he will go to his death never really understanding why. Its real hard to explain it to him since in the cell next to him he watched the security officers beat an inmate to death. How do you explain that one to him. Now, on the other hand, I feel a great deal of compassion for the parents of the college students that were murdered. I have two adult daughters of my own, I know the pain of losing a child (even though I have not lost mine, see a post I made in Spirits for an explanation of that) and I would never want that to happen to my own.

Fact is I am not sure what the moral right or wrongs are here. I only know that as I said before I will grieve for Danny, no one else will. And when the time comes if he needs help finding his way, as always I will be there to help him. Was I there for Ted, well no, that was something that I could not do. He did in fact make his own choices with full knowledge of what that meant.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

Originally Posted by alexa

Dear Juan,

Do you realize you have offered me your friend, Lady_Selune as an ally ?

Hmmm, being gang tackled by two beautiful women at once...how is this a bad thing?

[alexa]

Originally Posted by Lady_Selune

I totally disagree with you about Rollins (and this one might actually be my fault) He is mentally retarded. He has perhaps the intellectual level of a 10 year old. But his emotionally level is more like an infant really.

Well, I didn't have the courage to label him as mentally retarded, as I didn't know him in person, but I suspected his illness after reading your post. That's why I say he has not the same perception as a normal person. It's sad, but his place is in a mentaly institution and not in a jail.

[alexa]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Hmmm, being gang tackled by two beautiful women at once...how is this a bad thing?

Nope, this is not a bad thing for you, just a very interesting one !

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Juan,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I think I understand this, and can see that I applied the concept in a more liberal manner than is traditional. Semantic misunderstandings are too often a source of discord among people. Surely the goal of the teaching is to minimize discord as much as convey the essence of intent?

i agree.

i'm not convinced that is the goal of the teachings.. it often appears to me that a proper cognition of the teachings creates a lot of discord in one's normal worldview.

whilst this may be the intended effect, it can be quite disconcerting for beings that are not prepared for it. so much so that some will lash out in anger and frustration when confounded by the lack of self, for instance.

the teachings are a guide, a marker along the way, they are not the path. sometimes, one requires discord to be motivated to move along the path.

[Lady_Selune]

Originally Posted by alexa

Well, I didn't have the courage to label him as mentally retarded, as I didn't know him in person, but I suspected his illness after reading your post. That's why I say he has not the same perception as a normal person. It's sad, but his place is in a mentaly institution and not in a jail.

I agree, his lawyer did try for that but as I indicated ealier he was not able to get it. The whole thing was more of a blood hunt then a trial. People were afraid and upset, they needed a scapegaot and Rollins was an easy target.

[Lady_Selune]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Alexa!
Hmmm, being gang tackled by two beautiful women at once...how is this a bad thing?

Why thank you sweetie, how very nice of you to notice. and I agree with Alexa, interesting!

[Lady_Selune]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i'm not convinced that is the goal of the teachings.. it often appears to me that a proper cognition of the teachings creates a lot of discord in one's normal worldview.

I have always believe that gaining knowledge was an avenue to creating confusion in my mind. Just when I thought I had things figured out I would learn soemthing new that would throw my new understanding out the window. Oh course I am happy to say that not a day goes by that I don't learn something new. Does this mean I am always in a state of confusion, no, it means that the path I found keeps me at peace, the new knowledge finds it place in my mind and it will at some point become clear to me where it goes in the grand scheme of my mind.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

the teachings are a guide, a marker along the way, they are not the path. sometimes, one requires discord to be motivated to move along the path.

How very well put.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

Now that it seems we are fairly well caught up...(time to throw in the next monkey wrench! HAHAHAHA! )

The thought occurred to me, that morality, at least in the more general sense, might be an appeal to "fairness." I had thought of a number of examples, lets see if I can recall them. Like a child saying "no fair, do over!" Or the continuous appeal for economic redistribution to make things "more equal." Or the basis of the US Constitution in claiming that "All men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights..."

Of course, the last two examples play heavily into politics, which themselves influence and are influenced by a culture's morality, usually in the more formal, "legal" sense. I think at this point people have a general tendency towards believing that life should treat them fairly, that they should have an equal shot at any and every thing good this life has to offer. (I am intentionally overlooking the concept and aspect of responsibility for the moment)

But this is not the lesson nature provides us. Now, before I continue, I have to qualify what I am about to say. (Lady Selune knows the legalist in me, it drives my proffessors nuts sometimes...)

*I emphatically agree with and believe in equality in the political sense, with no reservations or conditions.*

That having been said, the concept of equality could in no way have come from nature. No two people are born alike. Forget socio-economic status, wealth and silver spoons. How about intellect? How about health? How about stature? How about strength or speed? How about physical beauty and attractiveness? This is the same among animals. Nature does not create anything "equal."

Now, I am aware this is a hazardous path to pursue in conversation here, so I want to remind that:

*We really need to leave the political concepts of racial superiority out of this discussion.* (As a courtesy to this site, and to Brian)

But the fact remains, some people are better capable in certain aspects, and not in others. To return to John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, "all men are created equal." At the time those words were written, the meaning was distinctly "free white land-owning tax-paying Christian males." It is only as the political concept enlarged over time that others were included, so that now, for the most part, western cultures try to be as all inclusive as reasonably possible (although some may differ with my use here of the term "reasonably").

Nature does not teach us this, regardless of some of the rhetoric I have seen written. Yet, we all pretty much accept the premise, to the point of demanding equality, even far beyond the field of politics. To return to the child's innate understanding of fairplay and equality, where does this stem from? A child cannot possibly be concerned with Locke's politics. Does it stem from a religious upbringing that teaches that God looks upon His children equally, that a wrong is a wrong is a wrong? Likewise, a right is a right is a right? Or maybe it is a spiritual intuition that guides a child into believing in a sense of fairplay? It certainly cannot be natural, nature teaches "here you are sucker, do something about it or die." (or at least something like this) Even among social animals, what sense of equality? The bull male basically tells the herd what to do, what equality in that? So our innate sense of equality and fairplay seems to me not natural, or at least not readily described by natural selection (evolution). Is this perhaps an indicator that conscience stems from a super-natural (that is, non-evolutionary) source?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Lady_Selune,

thank you for the post and welcome to the forum

enjoy your stay!

Originally Posted by Lady_Selune

I have always believe that gaining knowledge was an avenue to creating confusion in my mind. Just when I thought I had things figured out I would learn soemthing new that would throw my new understanding out the window.

i agree with you. of course, not all beings are like that.. many find the approach of the rational to be quite appealing. it is my view that the real issue in this approach, not that the others are immune to issues, is that one can confuse the theory for the praxis. mistaking their understanding of the concept for achievement in the concept. if that makes sense

Oh course I am happy to say that not a day goes by that I don't learn something new. Does this mean I am always in a state of confusion, no, it means that the path I found keeps me at peace, the new knowledge finds it place in my mind and it will at some point become clear to me where it goes in the grand scheme of my mind.

i often find this to be the case when i'm re-reading some religous texts. it's particularly true if i'm staying within the same overall paradigm and not jumping from one to another very quickly.

to take the conversation a bit further afield than it is now.. i have a thought about why this may be.. ok, i confess.. these really old Chinese guys had this thought first... but... it's a good thought!

when a person thinks of something, say the house at the lake, they are thinking in pictures.. symbols, if you will, that represent the concept to the thinker. symbols can come in a variety of fashions, words are symbols to convey thoughts and ideas to others via the written media... it is my view that this symbol set can interact with the original spirit... or as you like to call it in the west, the subconscious. in any case, no matter what you call it, this aspect of consciousness is not bound by our normal sense of time.. when the meaning of the symbol is unlocked, the meaning will just suddenly flash across you and it's as if you've known the information for your entire life.

eh... it's late and i'm rambling