Jump to content
Guest Haridas

absolute vs relative morality

Recommended Posts

Guest Haridas

What is relative morality?  It means basing your morals on what those around you are doing.  E.g. everyone else drinks (alcohol) so why shouldn't I drink?  Everyone else lies and steals should why shouldn't I? Mindless conformity.

And what is absolute morality?  Morality that is timeless, that your inner conscience tells you (and common sense) is right, and that is often expressed by higher principles.  E.g.  Drinking alcohol is immoral.  Lying is wrong.  Stealing is wrong.  And even if 99% of the people around me may engage in these things, I won't, on this basis.  This is intelligence based on individuality.

The point in this post is that I think too many people have fallen into a mindset of relative morality.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2

Morality is subjective, the reason something is right or wrong is because Vaheguru made it wrong, so morality isn't higher than Vaheguru, but rather lower. 

Is Robin Hood, (if he existed), a hero or a criminal? 

There is absolutely no such thing as objective morality in any eastern philospphy, it is only a product of Judea-Christian beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Haridas

Hi

I'm not sure I understand your point.  Yes He is higher than morals, but He is higher than us also.  Are you trying to say morality is irrelevant?  I do not see how anyone with a familiarity with SGGS and Dasam Bani could state that view.  All the good virtues (gunas) are His and by partaking in them that is a way or worshipping Him and liberating ourselves. (btw I personally don't like to brazenly write Gurmantra/Naam, so I refer to Him as He, just a personal thing hope you don't mind).  You can find so many Saloks in Nitnem that show them.

You sound like someone who actively engages in dishonesty and thinks it is justified.  Thats the only reason I can think that someone would support such a view as yours.

The example of Robin Hood is not complicated.  Stealing is wrong.  Sharing with the poor is good.  Were they starving?  Ok then, I understand stealing, but that doesn't make it 'right'.  Also they could have done it the most ethical way possible.  Who knows, a high class bhagat probably would rather depend on God or starve to death, then steal.  But the point I am making is personal morality, not about sitting in judgement of others.  I.e. it is for Robing Hood to reflect on his own behaviour.  (Also, all this is assuming that what we even know about him is true.  The historical records are sparse, from what I understand).

You put the example of Einstein on the thread I made about honesty, (but i could not respond because the admin. moved it).  Firstly, just because Einstein had great scientific insight, that doesn't make him an authority on morality.  That is fallacious reasoning.  Secondly, what actually happened is that he regretted signing a petition for the US government to create an atomic bomb, because he thought Germany were actively trying to make one.  He later learnt that this was wrong, hence regretted petitioning the government.  He did not regret his research, only his political actions.   Maybe if you had more respect for truthfulness you would  not get your facts so mixed up?

As for Judea-Christian beliefs, I would say the 10 commandments are very agreeable as a guideline for a devotee of God, and the seven deadly sins.  Jesus's utmost commandment was to love God with everything you have.  That is not 'subjective', that is kind of the point (in bhakti).

I think every eastern dharam has some kind of morality.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
On 9/10/2017 at 7:23 AM, Guest Haridas said:

I think every eastern dharam has some kind of morality.  

This one statement just proves you should know before commenting on such complex topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not believe in an absolute morality, dharam is not the same for each and every individual. This is not to say that dharam does not exist, only that it doesn't exist in a monolithic form. 

This concept is reflected very well in the life of the Mahapurakh Sant Baba Thakur Singh, 14th jathedar of Damdami Taksaal. Babaji was a strict vegetarian like all members of Taksaal, so for him eating meat was a great sin. However when he visited the chaunis (encampments) of Nihang Singhs around Chowk Mehta he would often bring offerings of goats to be jhatkaa'd by the nihangs and later consumed. Because eating meat was not a great paap for them as it was for babaji, rather it was their tradition and he respected that the role they were given by the Almighty was different from his own.  Satguru's Hukam affects each person differently. 

Eastern dharams tend not to impose moral codes on the whole of humankind, as though such codes apply to everybody. Yes there are certain basic guiding principles of human morality - don't murder, don't rape, but most sane people don't really need to be told not to do these things by a religion because they feel an inherent revulsion towards them. However beyond this things can get quite flexible. Some people are meant to be householders and provide for a family, whilst others are meant to be celibates and devote their lives and all their energy to Akaal Purakh and Seva of the Panth. If God creates someone with the intention that they will become a warrior, battle becomes dharam for this person, a righteous deed. If however God creates a man and by his hukam determines that this man is to be peaceful saint, battle is adharam for him, not righteous. This is why different sampardas/jathebandiaan exist in Sikhi. Guru Ji is not/was not anti-samparda or anti-jathebandi, if they were, they wouldn't have created or blessed so many of them themselves.

I don't know if what I'm saying is right, but this is the conclusion I have arrived at from my study of Sikhi. Others will have arrived at different conclusions, and good thing too -  Sikhi is a garden full of many diverse flowers.  I do not believe Guru Ji aspired to make all Sikhs, or all people,  identical in their religious outlook and practice. 

Edited by Balkaar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dhan
On 09/09/2017 at 4:17 PM, Guest Haridas said:

What is relative morality?  It means basing your morals on what those around you are doing.  E.g. everyone else drinks (alcohol) so why shouldn't I drink?  Everyone else lies and steals should why shouldn't I? Mindless conformity.

And what is absolute morality?  Morality that is timeless, that your inner conscience tells you (and common sense) is right, and that is often expressed by higher principles.  E.g.  Drinking alcohol is immoral.  Lying is wrong.  Stealing is wrong.  And even if 99% of the people around me may engage in these things, I won't, on this basis.  This is intelligence based on individuality.

The point in this post is that I think too many people have fallen into a mindset of relative morality.  

Great points :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji didn't discriminate between satguru as their is only one same satguru for every yug.  He told us to praise, worship, meditate on the one and only satguru.  He wrote about the 24 incarnations of Vishnu and he corrected what happened actually to the 24 incarnations.  If Krishna and Vishnu were satguru, Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji would have said it in his writing about them.  Instead he wrote to say I don't praise them or think of them, I hold Mahakaal ( which translates into Vaheguru in this context as he is the destroyer of all) praise only in my mind.
    • people need to stop having WWA matches with rehits imo. 
    • This whole jathabandi nonsense has had a negative impact on Sikhi, and I wish we would do away with it.
    •   Jagsaw, I am very surprised that you consider the movement of Sikhs out of areas with substantial Sikh populations to be "progress". First of all, I thought you lived in Southall?  Or perhaps another part of West London?  If so, I find it odd that you consider it a positive thing not to live in areas such as the one that you yourself live in. Second of all, I think you are greatly overlooking just how much of a positive impact that living in an area with a substantial Sikh population can have when it comes to preserving our religion and culture.  It is foolish to discount the importance of children being able to grow up in a "community", with Gurdwaras and Khalsa Schools nearby, with peers who come from the same background, who practice the same things, speak the same language.  I credit the "ghettoization" of the Sikh community in the UK for preserving the Sikh religion and Punjabi culture despite several generations having elapsed.  The vast majority of Sikhs in the UK trace their roots in the UK to the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s.  Yet somehow, young Sikhs in the UK appear to be more religious and interested in Sikh issues than the Sikh youth in Canada or America.  Somehow, young Sikhs in the UK seem to have almost as much exposure to Punjabi language and culture as their American and Canadian counterparts whose families arrived from India in the 1980s and 1990s. In America, the vast majority of Sikhs live in cities and neighborhoods with effectively no Sikh presence.  That has an impact.  It leads to young Sikhs who grow up with little knowledge of, connection to, or regard for their religion and culture.  It leads to interfaith marriages that effectively wipe out Sikhi from families.  It cripples our ability to safeguard our way of life.  I very much doubt that young Sikhs in America in the year 2060, whose families arrived in the 1990s, will speak fluent Punjabi, go to the gurdwara, engage with their religion, and connect to Sikh political issues the way that a surprisingly large number of young Sikhs in the UK do today. 
    •   I think Malwa gets more credit for keeping Sikhi alive than it deserves.  Malwa is bigger than Majha and Doaba combined (in both land and population).  So the contributions its people have made to Sikhi in recent times is a bit distorted (I say "recent times", because before 1947, Majha and Malwa were comparable in terms of land and Sikh population).  Malwa is so much bigger that it dominates.   It is notable that even though Majha has a much smaller population than Malwa, the vast majority of young Sikhs who took up arms in the 1980s were from Majha. The Majha district (especially what is now Amritsar District and Tarn Taran District) have historically been the strongholds of Sikhi.  However, this region was the hardest hit during the dark times of the 1980s and 1990s, and it is perhaps the hardest hit today when it comes to the drug epidemic.  Sadly, the Sikh youth in Majha seem to have discarded their kesh, do not follow rehat, and have in many cases succumbed to drugs.
×