The Moral Proof
Tue, 01/22/2008 - 17:12 — admin
Now, this argument is also connected with the moral proof, which was very dear to Kant. God is the ultimate standard of goodness, and the tendency of human beings to act in a moral or just way can only be satisfactorily explained with reference to His pleasure. What is “good” or what is “bad” would be an arbitrary decision for each individual to make were there no absolute standard of goodness.
Why should it be wrong to rape a woman, for example, if I desire to enjoy the sexual experience? Since I might feel it is “bad” to be deprived of what I want-in this case, the orgasm-in terms relative to my enjoyment, it would most certainly be “good” to take that which I desire, even by force.
If there is no Supreme Being to please, then my standard of what is right or wrong will be developed only in regard to my own self-centered desires-or perhaps in relation to those I am emotionally attached to, and whom if I displease can inhibit my opportunity for personal pleasure.
MICHAEL: What about the social repercussions, though? Couldn't it be argued that there is survival value in being moral or just? I mean, if everyone acted with no concern for others, it would be a dog-eat-dog world! Just for one's own benefit, isn't there reason enough, with no need to bring in any Deity, to act in a moral way?
TEACHER: Not necessarily. First, let me point out that in the situation you've just mentioned, the criteria is still “What is good for me.” Now, some times, yes, it might be “good” for me to have a mutual non-exploitation pact with others, or to band together with them in the form of a community or state with certain rules of order. But, at other times it may not. And certainly there would be no morally justifiable reason in such a system to help those outside of it. Why send rice to feed starving children on the other side of the world, for instance? Why not just let them die? And why bring refugees from Cambodia or Vietnam to this country when there is already an unemployment problem?
There is no reason to do these or any other humanitarian deeds which ultimately lead to a sacrifice on my own part if there is no criteria other than personal survival or happiness.
However, neither the Sri Ishopanishad nor any other Vedic literature recommends that we neglect bodily needs. Bhagavad-gita states:The Moral Proof
There is no possibility of one's becoming a yogi, O Arjuna, if one eats too much, or eats too little, sleeps too much or does not sleep enough.
~Bhagavad-gita 6:16
Science of Identity Foundation – Siddhaswarupananda
Now, this argument is also connected with the moral proof, which was very dear to Kant. God is the ultimate standard of goodness, and the tendency of human beings to act in a moral or just way can only be satisfactorily explained with reference to His pleasure. What is “good” or what is “bad” would be an arbitrary decision for each individual to make were there no absolute standard of goodness.
Why should it be wrong to rape a woman, for example, if I desire to enjoy the sexual experience? Since I might feel it is “bad” to be deprived of what I want-in this case, the orgasm-in terms relative to my enjoyment, it would most certainly be “good” to take that which I desire, even by force.
If there is no Supreme Being to please, then my standard of what is right or wrong will be developed only in regard to my own self-centered desires-or perhaps in relation to those I am emotionally attached to, and whom if I displease can inhibit my opportunity for personal pleasure.
MICHAEL: What about the social repercussions, though? Couldn't it be argued that there is survival value in being moral or just? I mean, if everyone acted with no concern for others, it would be a dog-eat-dog world! Just for one's own benefit, isn't there reason enough, with no need to bring in any Deity, to act in a moral way?
TEACHER: Not necessarily. First, let me point out that in the situation you've just mentioned, the criteria is still “What is good for me.” Now, some times, yes, it might be “good” for me to have a mutual non-exploitation pact with others, or to band together with them in the form of a community or state with certain rules of order. But, at other times it may not. And certainly there would be no morally justifiable reason in such a system to help those outside of it. Why send rice to feed starving children on the other side of the world, for instance? Why not just let them die? And why bring refugees from Cambodia or Vietnam to this country when there is already an unemployment problem?
There is no reason to do these or any other humanitarian deeds which ultimately lead to a sacrifice on my own part if there is no criteria other than personal survival or happiness.