PDA

View Full Version : Ethics for the less capable to be self-reliant


Wordy
03-29-2008, 04:33 PM
Pardon my poor grammar and faulty logic. Ethics are maybe formal while moral is practical behavior.

We usually support ethics on equal chances and equal treatment when it comes to rules and we support equality as far as is practically possible.

Which is hard to do in practice.

Research show that good looking people often are favored when it comes to how they are treated.

One virtue that is favored is the capacity to be self-reliant. To be too needy and reliant on help from others is seen as less valued than to be self-reliant.

Often it is claimed that we all have equal chance if we are given equal chance in school.

If we all put our mind and effort into something we all could be as good at it as those who seems to have a talent for it. so they say.

We have a TV program about School that do these claims in every puff for the show. several times a day.

But in practice not all achieve a result that is on par with even the median of results measured. some of us are less capable to read and write and behave in the expected way.
And it doesn't help us much to put mind and effort into it either. Sure we improve but not
so much that it is even living up to the minimum required to be treated as an equal.

Religions seems to have some tools to deal with this. Maybe not good tools but they address it. They take it on openly. Maybe they just brag and pay lip service but it feels like that they care.

I try to give an example from an atheistic religion. Buddhism.
I don't support Buddhism but they claim they are rational and atheists like us.

Dharma Community in a Different Light

The difference at Amida is what is called “Other Power”.

Other power is the flow of love and creativity that comes from Amida Nyorai.

You could call it the cosmic creative force, or the accumulated merit of the Buddhas.

There are essentially two kinds of spirituality.

In one kind you rely upon your own power and try to perfect yourself so that you, as it were, rise up to heaven by your own inner resources by doing meditation, following a discipline and realizing your higher self.

In the other kind – which is our kind – you abandon self-power and rely upon a power that comes from outside yourself, that emerges from the emptiness of shunyata, that reanimates things as they are rather than demanding that they change and improve themselves in order to qualify.

http://www.amidatrust.com/

Suppose me accept that Buddhists are atheists. Formally they really are but I am not into formal interpretations I am into functional interpretation on how people behave in relation to claims made in the name of their tradition. Such as the Four Noble Truth and Eight Noble Paths.

But when I read the Amida text above I see similarities with religious faith here in West. And do remember that Amida Buddhism is still atheistic. They are atheists as formally as we are!

There are these two ways of relating here among western religions too.

To be self-reliant or to rely on Other Power. even in secular ideologies and world views.

Atheists active in IIDB favor to be self-reliant. To be dependent on others is seen as a cop out, to cheat.

I think it is fair to say that I behaved like that from being 20 years old to being 40 years old. I relied totally on my own power and was very proud of being a self made man.

Until me realized I was nothing without others.

That doesn't mean me support one should start calling Jesus for help or to think of Amida and his love for all of us.

I mean as atheists we could start talking about this notion of being dependent on fellow atheists as persons to cooperate with and share joy and sorrow with meeting regularly with. On a truly volunteer way. Cause it feels good. Of our own inner commitment and not obliged to do it demanded by outer authority over us.


From a post me did in another forum.

Wordy
03-30-2008, 06:47 PM
thanks for confirming my message. :)

dug_down_deep
03-30-2008, 08:17 PM
That's a long post, with a lot of jumping off points, Wordy. Can you point us to your thesis statement? You might get more a response if you can boil it down a bit.

Wordy
03-30-2008, 08:23 PM
That is why I need help from Other Power, I don't have that kind of capacity or ability or talent.

Had I had that ability then I would have written in a way you had been satisfied with.
Is what I want to say so hard to get what I try to say in that post?To me it is obvious
but I fail to find other words for it just now. I thought me gave ti the best presentation possible

dug_down_deep
03-30-2008, 08:24 PM
It is for me. Sorry.

ETA: People need an Other to rely on, and this is the source of theist belief, as well as secular communities and 'atheist' religions. Is this it?

Wordy
03-30-2008, 08:26 PM
One virtue that is favored is the capacity to be self-reliant. To be too needy and reliant on help from others is seen as less valued than to be self-reliant.


If we start there is that problematic?

It my experience that almost all atheist have self-reliance as a highly valued virtue.

Seems also to be the case with atheistic Buddhists among IIDB users.

Wordy
03-30-2008, 08:47 PM
ETA: People need an Other to rely on, and this is the source of theist belief, as well as secular communities and 'atheist' religions. Is this it?

Some people need no other at all. some need others at one time and not on other times, some people need other people much or all the time.

Ahteist here in Sweden saw much value in being totally self reliant and looked down on being dependent on other to get on in life.

Theism is not important here in any other way than we could learn from the fact that they pay lip service to the fact that some people need others sometimes.

One could see it as a kind of kidnapping of a niche they exploited.
Is that a bit more clear then?

dug_down_deep
03-30-2008, 08:48 PM
Interesting. Is the capability for self-reliance a destructive or at least problematic value to hold?

I don't know the answer to that, but it's a great question.

Wordy
03-30-2008, 08:56 PM
Did you read that into my text? That was not what I intended.

I mean it is very problematic when it is almost the sole value that is supported and almost nobody support that one could need cooperation and mutual support as a value.

Didn't I mention Austin Dacey's book "Secular Conscience" he take it up much better than me are capable of.
http://www.austindacey.com/writing.html

But the way several of you treat me here is very much an example on it too.

You treat me as a self-reliant person despite me explaining that I am not such a person.
Instead of helping me find arguement together with you or from outside you ask me to be self reliant and give it all to you as if I was some kind of expert on what I take up.

Wordy
03-30-2008, 09:09 PM
Interesting. Is the capability for self-reliance a destructive or at least problematic value to hold?

I don't know the answer to that, but it's a great question.

I think it is great to be self-reliant, we all want to be.

That gives us no right to pretend that everybody are and that those who are not is kind of invisible or not in it together with us.