Jump to content

absolute vs relative morality


Guest Haridas
 Share

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.  

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
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.

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
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 :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji 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...
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use