Ethical/Moral actions

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 26 Aug 2002, and now archived in the Forum Library.

jmd	26 Aug 2002
I have just read, for the first time, the wonderful 5 page (at this stage) thread started by Kiama: Why do we need their permission?, and thought that some of the central concerns involve concepts and reflections which seek to establish what ethical or moral acts actually are. For example, in the above mentioned thread, whether or not asking permission for something seems to very much depend on whether the 'gift' is truly a gift, or an imposition upon someone. I think it was napaea who mentioned, in that same thread, that healing energy may be sent in order for the other person to so make use of it if they so chose (which is a little different to an imposition: if someone makes available an airline ticket, I may or may not choose to utilise it, depending on other factors - in the healing case, those factors may include my higher needs and the specific ways in which I may choose to meet my own destiny). If I also remember correctly, it was the hermit who also brought a different, but central, concept to the discussion: that of motive. Presumably, however, motive would not be viewed as a sufficient determinant to the ethical position of an action... So, although this is certainly closely related to Kiama's thread, I thought the questions/concepts addressed to be sufficiently distinct to begin this new thread. Over to you... How is an act properly a moral act?

Minderwiz	26 Aug 2002
This is a good idea for a thread!! I'll just interpose a couple of issues for comment - Is morality an absolute and unchanging set of rules or behaviour? or is it relative to the time, place and society? In terms of what is an ethical act again for the moment I'll simply suggest that it accords with the 'golden rule' 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you' In this case motive is very important - what is intended by the act rather than simply the consequences of the act - though acting negligently may well constitute a 'lesser' moral offence. Minderwiz

the hermit	26 Aug 2002
Quote: Originally posted by jmd How is an act properly a moral act? Quote: Originally posted by Minderwiz I'll just interpose a couple of issues for comment - Is morality an absolute and unchanging set of rules or behaviour? or is it relative to the time, place and society? The 2 questions above are both really parts of the whole, and thus bring, for me, the same answer. Morality is not an absolute in any case because rules of behavior have and still do change relative to time, place and society. Thus an act must always be judged from within the time and place of society. It becomes problematic when there exists (as now) a widely diverse set of cultures within the same time frame (this of course is not a unique situation, but instead a common occurrence throughout history). The dilemma then becomes “who has the right to impose their moral standards upon others”. Thus the real problem becomes “who’s ethics are the yardstick and does imposition then become immoral?” Quote: Originally posted by jmd If I also remember correctly, it was the hermit who also brought a different, but central, concept to the discussion: that of motive . Presumably, however, motive would not be viewed as a sufficient determinant to the ethical position of an action... I would respectfully disagree with this presumption as I feel that motive is always a determinant, though not the only one, of any ethical position of action. A “moral” act may become individually “immoral” due to motivation. But again the real problem becomes “who’s ethics are the yardstick?” Quote: Originally posted by Minderwiz In terms of what is an ethical act again for the moment I'll simply suggest that it accords with the 'golden rule'... 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you' I agree, in that at least now you are asking that your own moral standards (not those of others) be applied to you or judgment of you. Quote: Originally posted by Minderwiz In this case motive is very important - what is intended by the act rather than simply the consequences of the act - though acting negligently may well constitute a 'lesser' moral offence. And one might also add that failure to act may also constitute a “lesser” or even “greater” moral offense. The final yardstick thus, in my opinion, must always be one’s own. Judgment of morality is thus up to the individual or their god/dess (or higher power if any) or both. Let us not forget that “moral act” is not necessarily the same as “lawful act” and is judged differently. In the case of “democratic” states, that judgment is based on (at least in theory) the “majority rule” which sets the “law” by which one is judged. This is an entirely different argument outside the boundaries of this thread (imho). One final thought... the original thread asked "why we need their permission?". my answer was based on what "I" needed, not what others need. that will always be the issue for me... my morals my judgment

Martin	27 Aug 2002
"In terms of what is an ethical act again for the moment I'll simply suggest that it accords with the 'golden rule' 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you' " I agree that this is a good yardstick for measuring ethical actions for it doesn't exclude any particular actions, as long as you apply it not only to the action you are about to carry out but the entire situation. For example, if I had gone out of my way to make a persons life intolerable I would expect them to do to me as I would to them if in the same situation, whether I liked it or not, and if someone did purposely threaten me then I would not exclude actions considered imorral by others. Therefore this type of reasoning doesn't have the same quandries that a "rule" like harm none has. Martin

Laurel	27 Aug 2002
I agree with Martin that this is the place to start, the Golden Rule. We teach by example. What we do, how we live, is going to have an impact on the people around us. I would suggest that the second part of ethical/moral actions is to be consistent in both our initial action and the way we relate to the outcome. If we have a pure "helpful" motive but nonetheless accidentally harm someone or someone's possessions, just leaving our victim to "clean up the mess" nullifies the value of the original act. Likewise, if for some reason I decide that I have reason to harm someone (self defense, protection of loved ones, ending a threat) than I need to be prepared for the consequences including those that bring me harm/loss of freedom and to accept them willingly and fearlessly. Laurel

The Ethical/Moral actions thread was originally posted on 26 Aug 2002 in the Spirituality board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Spirituality, or read more archived threads.