Morals versus karma?

[stephencp]

Spinning off of another thread that I did not want to hijack, what do people say the relationship between karma and "morals" is? Since many here seem to agree often with Steve P, who seems often to agree with Buddha, let's assume that karma is real for the purposes of this thread.

Stephen
Power-Book Library: Free personal development, success, inspiration and motivational classics

[Michael Chui]

If I understand both terms correctly, morals is the guide by which you can interpret the karmic effect of your actions.

[stephencp]

can you give an example?

[Michael Chui]

Well, let's say it's morally wrong to kill someone. Therefore, the effect is that you'll have bad karma from it. Alternatively, let's say it's morally right to give money to a random homeless guy. The effect is that you'll get good karma from it.

[stephencp]

"Well, let's say it's morally wrong to kill someone. Therefore, the effect is that you'll have bad karma from it."

The "let's say" part is the problem. Is it alway wrong? Is it wrong for me to kill the terrorist about to blow up a bus load of school children? Would that get me good karma or bad?
There is a story about a Boddhisatva on a boat who killed a would-be robber that was about to kill a bunch of other people. He accepted a little bit of bad karma (assuming that it was bad) to prevent the would be robber/murderer from accumulating infinately more bad karma. It can get confusing huh?

Stephen
Power-Book Library: Free personal development, success, inspiration and motivational classics

[Michael Chui]

Um... are you asking me to define some morals for you? Morals change depending on your personal belief system. To some people, murder is fine. To others, it's not. To the former set, assuming they believe in karma, they would further believe that they would get good karma from it. To the latter, again assuming belief in karma, would anticipate bad karma.

[ahimel]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Um... are you asking me to define some morals for you? Morals change depending on your personal belief system. To some people, murder is fine. To others, it's not. To the former set, assuming they believe in karma, they would further believe that they would get good karma from it. To the latter, again assuming belief in karma, would anticipate bad karma.

And thus you should be able to determine the accuracy of your morals by observing the effect of your actions on your karma. If you tell a lie to protect a friend and then bad things randomly start happening to you, you can conclude that the lie outweighed the protection. If good things start happening, vice-versa. This can be explained in three different models:

Buddhist The lie created good/bad karma, resulting in good/bad events.

Atheist Subjective Realist You define your own good/bad, and the events following are a reflection of your beliefs on your actions. If, deep down, you believe that protecting your friend wasn't worth the lie, you'll use the Law of Attraction to manifest bad events. If you feel that it was worth it, you'll use the Law of Attraction to manifest good things.

Morman The gift of the Holy Ghost follows you around everywhere to give you continuous feedback on your actions. When the importance of protecting your friend outweighs your untruth, then you've told a "good" lie and God rewards you. When you tell a "bad" lie, God punishes you.

I'm sure there are other models to explain it, but those are the three that pop to my mind.

So if you fail to kill the terrorist and your life starts sucking, then it was the wrong thing to do. Karma is, among other things, a way to measure morality.

[stephencp]

"If good things start happening, vice-versa."

I'm not a Buddhist, however I don't think that karma works that fast or is quite that easy to figure out. From what I understand, karma is as much about your NEXT life as this one.

Stephen
www.power-booklibrary.

[ahimel]

Originally Posted by stephencp

From what I understand, karma is as much about your NEXT life as this one.

And contrariwise, as much about this life as your next one.

I'm not a Buddhist either (at least not in any official way) so don't take it as dogma. English is a poorer language for not having an I-believe-this-to-be-true-but-only-because-I-have-great-confidence-in-things-I-make-up conjugation.

[Michael Chui]

Someone explained the three types of karma rather well in another thread... I'd have to go dig for it. I'm no expert on any of the Dharma religions, as they're apparently called, so I stayed away from actually stating what karma was.

[Markus74]

How do we decide what good and bad morals are?

[Michael Chui]

Don't know. I haven't decided on any.

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Don't know. I haven't decided on any.

So how do you know how to behave? Or whether you should do something or not?

[Michael Chui]

I found the explanation on karma, by the way:
Karmic Debt

Originally Posted by Markus74

So how do you know how to behave? Or whether you should do something or not?

I don't know how to behave, nor do I know whether or not I should do anything.

But I decide to behave in certain ways and I choose to do some things and I choose not to do some things. If you want to say that some of my actions are morally right and others are morally wrong, then that's your right, but I'm not obligated to accept your opinion on the matter.

The decision over my actions is entirely mine in the context of my experience.

[J.R. Neumiller]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

If you want to say that some of my actions are morally right and others are morally wrong, then that's your right, but I'm not obligated to accept your opinion on the matter.

Yes. And keep that in mind the next time some one steals from you, tells a lie to your face, or otherwise inconveniences you in the slightest degree. They are not obligated to accept your opinion of the matter either.

And furthermore, any moral judgment coming from your soul regarding the rightness or wrongness of any of those actions is merely your own moral arrogance rearing its ugly head.

Happy Living.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by J.R. Neumiller

Yes. And keep that in mind the next time some one steals from you, tells a lie to your face, or otherwise inconveniences you in the slightest degree. They are not obligated to accept your opinion of the matter either.

What, because someone inconveniencing me is immoral? Who do you think I am? God? Theft assumes the correct distribution of property; falsehood requires a certainty of truth. Can you guarantee either?

I cannot be stolen from. I own property, I have money, I place value in many things. But losing any of these does not diminish me, because I do not require them. I even have my life, but a "theft" of that breath is not even immoral, because I choose to accept it. I would not consider the murder immoral. You are free to; I'd be touched.

I do not believe that lying is immoral. Lies are merely a secondary form of communication. The expression of a falsehood may be an inconvenience, but the expression itself is true. They did say it. I may disagree with their decision to lie, with their motivations behind it or intentions before it. But I do not consider it immoral: that would suggest I require they emulate myself.

And that's far too much to ask for a mere mortal, neh? Please do not assume I am like yourself.