Fixed or Relative Ethics & Morals?

[buddhist]

Does your religious or philosophical system teach a fixed or relative system of ethics & morals?

In early Buddhism, as I understand it, it is relative. For example, in DN27 (a Buddhist "Genesis"), the Buddha taught how the various beings on the different planes of existence came to be. Through progressively degraded ethics, morals, and behavior, individuals thus found themselves reborn in progressively lower realms. It does not appear to be primarily a censuring of or judgment on their behavior, but a simple statement of fact on the Lord Buddha's part as to how the Laws of Kamma & Rebirth works. Another example are the different precepts for different groups of Buddhists (laypeople, lay devotees, novices, and monastics). Or, the progressively higher goals required to reach each of the four states of enlightenment.

Essentially, there is no one fixed set, or standard, of ethics or morals in early Buddhism as I understand it. If one wishes to be reborn in the hells, then practice the level of ethics or morals appropriate to the hell realms. Rebirth in the human realm requires a higher level of ethics and morals, and likewise for the heavens and nibbana.

 

[savagewind]

I guess fixed. I believe there exists just one system.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I believe every being has a perspective and must interpret information according to that perspective, making all information in, and conclusions out, relative to that individual. Which means there is at least a degree of relativity in all ethics and moral systems.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's all relative.
But I prefer my morals to the opposition.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It teaches that we are pretty much making it all up as we go along, but, at the same time, it also teaches that while there are indeed many different approaches to morality, we can weight also weigh our actions against individual wants, the collective good, and harm done: ultimately from here it depends on many things, such as a Libertarian paradise where individuals flourish more with minimal government and taxes, or a Socialist utopia where individuals flourish because of a collective prosperity.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Fixed but with room for interpretation. God sees the desire behind an action, not the action itself.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think "fixed" is a good descriptor, but "relative" is even worse.

Morals are at least "fairly" objective. But our ability to understand and implement them often isn't very rational and reliable at all.

 

[Quintessence]

There really are not any official teachings about this sort of thing in Druidry (or Paganisms more broadly). I suppose in that respect you could say the "official teaching" is to approach it however you prefer.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I think they are relative, but even if I thought they were fixed, it creates another problem: how do you know what they are?

By what method do you determine these fixed morals? Is your method of discerning these fixed morals strong enough to be shared by others? If the method was perfect and the morals were fixed, then shouldn't anyone following those methods should come to the same conclusions?

Why doesn't this ever happen?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I find morals are usually enacted according to how much luxury one has to actualize them. I wouldn't define them as either "fixed" or "relative," but rather "contextual."

Generally speaking, for most normal people, the more time one has to debate over the finer points of hypothetical situations regarding morality, the less they need to actually worry about morality in any meaningful way. And, if they ever lose that luxury, all the navel gazing about morality over all that time will likely have little influence on how they act in a situation where it matters.

 

[JeremK]

Morals are subjectively objective and objectively subjective.

However, it can objectively be said that some actions cause more suffering than others. Murdering a man, for example, is far more harmful than masturbating.

 

[arthra]

Rebirth in the human realm requires a higher level of ethics and morals, and likewise for the heavens and nibbana.

Well "Buddhist" you pose an interesting question... of course we Baha'is don't subscribe to reincarnation or rebirth. We do recognize however that each dispensation can have it's own ordinances and standards over time... thus the conditions of life at the time of Moses would be different from the time of Christ and again the codes of conduct and ordinances in the time of Muhammad would again be suited for the times. There were also ordinances that were revealed by the Bab that were later abrogated by Baha'u'llah and so on.

So moral codes and ordinances can vary from age to age.

 

[syo]

fixed.

 

[osgart]

fixed... because there are simply actions and intentions that should never ever be done. evil should not exist and you know it when you see it or experience it. evil is not conducive to life.

 

[LukeS]

Morals have to be fairly fixed, because the basic human nervous system is fixed.

Heart = mind.

“In the body is a morsel of flesh which, if it be sound, all the body is sound and which, if it be diseased, all of it is diseased. This part of the body is the heart.”

Hadith 6:The Sound Heart

 

[1robin]

Does your religious or philosophical system teach a fixed or relative system of ethics & morals?

In early Buddhism, as I understand it, it is relative. For example, in DN27 (a Buddhist "Genesis"), the Buddha taught how the various beings on the different planes of existence came to be. Through progressively degraded ethics, morals, and behavior, individuals thus found themselves reborn in progressively lower realms. It does not appear to be primarily a censuring of or judgment on their behavior, but a simple statement of fact on the Lord Buddha's part as to how the Laws of Kamma & Rebirth works. Another example are the different precepts for different groups of Buddhists (laypeople, lay devotees, novices, and monastics). Or, the progressively higher goals required to reach each of the four states of enlightenment.

Essentially, there is no one fixed set, or standard, of ethics or morals in early Buddhism as I understand it. If one wishes to be reborn in the hells, then practice the level of ethics or morals appropriate to the hell realms. Rebirth in the human realm requires a higher level of ethics and morals, and likewise for the heavens and nibbana.

Depends.

If a God like Yahweh exists then yes objective fixed moral values and duties exist because like all truths, they cannot contradict themselves and be remain true.

However if you have a relative, malleable, or a God who is defined (or bound) by his own creation, or even no God then there are no objective truths except for the objective truths that there are no objective truths. Which makes no sense and therefor reveals a God which is logically incoherent.