Cerridwen posted a seed today called Ethics of the in between which forced me to set some order to a whole mess of thinking I’ve been doing over a period of several years, about the difference between what you might call theoretical and practical ethics. So go read the seed. It’s got some ideas which are more direct than mine, and the emphasis is a little different.
I heard a radio interview the other day with a Seventh Day Adventist minister who had been working in Africa to combat AIDS. He mentioned that the “flock” in had the same rate of HIV as the general population; his very reasonable response to this was that we’re all human, and whatever beliefs we have we can’t escape this, but that he hoped that in the end those beliefs would be expressed in action and therefore lower the spread of HIV among believers. But it highlighted the distinction between what people think they should do and what they actually do, and in particular it calls into question the purpose and value of encompassing ethical frameworks like Christianity or for that matter secular liberal humanism. If it doesn’t change what you do, then what does it matter what you think?
The world is in the grip of what seems at one level clash between fundamentalist Islam and bible belt Christianity. Think about this for a moment: neither religion sanctions the use of violence in this way. Both faiths have been hijacked to justify the evil actions of power hungry men. And lest you think I’m singling out religion for this, remember that bringing freedom and democracy
, the cause of liberal humanism, was used to justify an oil war and an occupation which has driven 4 million Iraqis from their homes and caused half a million deaths.
So overarching moral philosophical frameworks have the disadvantage that they can be co-opted. If I say I’m a Buddhist, that most peaceful of belief systems, I’ve made a label which can be used for propaganda. Someone else identifying as a Buddhist can try to claim my loyalty or support. Likewise I can fool myself, substituting cliché and slogan for well thought through moral position. Even worse I can fool myself by saying that since I am a Buddhist the things I do must have good motivation.
Getting back more to the point raised in Cerridwen’s seed, trying to be perfect easily makes one judgemental, towards others and towards oneself. It’s a type of pride, and a sort of control mania. It’s not what you ‘are’ (if there is such a thing) which matters, it’s what you do in this moment. How you care and help and challenge and enjoy and engage with this moment. Everything else is the mental construct we call the past and future.
My take on free will is that we have a lot less than we suppose. You’ll realise this if you try to give up smoking, or even if you’re really really hungry and someone puts a plate of hot chips in front of you. A lot of what passes for choice is in fact justification for choices already made by our hindbrain’s desires. But that justification is often in the form of using some idea or label from our ethical creed as an excuse for action which our “whole mind” – hindbrain as well as considered emotion and reasoning – would not wish to do. Take a step back and think it through and you may not want that cigarette. Grab it, and as you’re going to light it you think to yourself “I should have this one, I’m too tense and angry and that’s bad.”
Because in my view the root of forgiveness, of love, of joy – of every action which is good in whatever religion or philosophy – is selflessness. Acting from a standpoint outside the ego. Whereas the ego’s strength comes from a set of beliefs about the world and about oneself, a set of memories and labels and ways of seeing oneself and ones actions in the past. I say I am an x and y and z. I have done this and I will do that. It’s all second-hand. A picture of how I do act and how I should act. Of course it’s me right? And I’m a good person
. I believe that I am a positive benefit to those around me and that I act out of good motives. But all that is in between the moment and the action and the choice I make right now. It makes a structure which can justify and explain and stand in between what my whole focussed in the moment mind would want, and what action I actually take. It’s like putting the words “freedom and democracy” in place of the truth of what happens in Iraq right now.
If you have thought though and understood the situation, and then with complete mindful attention act according to the dictates of now, then all labels and excuses are left aside. There is long term planning – it doesn’t make that impossible – but there’s no pretence. We’re not used to living in a world without excuses and the result can be shocking. That’s especially the case because our actions are so much less motivated by self-interest. It’s very interesting just how much of what we do is all circled around reinforcing and sustaining the pretence we build up around ourselves all our lives. Going without this is terribly frightening but also terribly liberating.
So what use is philosophy, religion, theory? Rather a lot – I just think we cling to it too long and don’t trust ourselves naked of it.
Belief systems change the way we perceive the world. That’s terribly important. We need a consistent, sensible, encompassing framework into which to fit experience so that we can draw meaning from it. We need to be constantly reevaluating and expanding on this framework so as to form a deep understanding of our universe. It’s only from this understanding that our choices, in the moment, make sense. But in making each choice we have to keep all the labels and language and systems out of our heads and be instead just in the world of experience. The meaning we have extracted from the belief system remains, but if we were to focus on the system it would obscure both the experience of the world and the essence of the meaning.
I respect high ideals. I think values are worth talking about. But it’s what you do not what you say that makes who you are. Each moment of each day we make choices, and most of these thousands of choices are made according to a formula – as if a robot is acting according to a pre-set program. Many of the outcomes of that program are perfectly good, but many are not. I want to ask you this: next time you deal with someone at work and you’re about to say “I’m sorry but that’s the procedure, we have to do things this way” – then think again. Next time something is “unavoidable” because “that’s how it’s done” ask yourself if it’s best instead. See how it works out. Apply the same requirements to political leaders. No one should get away with saying that bad outcomes are inevitable, or that suffering is necessary, or worse still that we must do bad things to achieve good ends.