Ethics

[Matt1]

I have been considering Ethics and Morals today after reading an interesting article on facebook. I believe i have come to some answer at least personally that makes sense to me in regards to what is ethical or unethical. If we take a common hot topic on ethics such as the eating of meat versus veganism or anything else that is similar we can boil it down to something very simple. That is of course what is right and what is wrong, what is good or what is bad. This seems to the age old question since the dawn of civilization itself. In society have we a sense of what is generally considered appropriate ethical conduct such as non killing and what is general considered taboo such as stealing from another, these actions are further enforced by a set of laws by Government that are voted upon and then enforced appropriately. If we trace the roots of Law back to its beginning i think in the west we will find it going back to abrahamic Law or the ten commandments that Moses received from God. It is interesting to note that in both causes whether in the law giving of Government or by God we have an authority figure. I think this is part of the problem when it comes to Ethics because if we consider that what was Ethical in the middle ages would not be considered ethical today and what is consider ethical today will unlikely based on progression of history be ethical in hundred years time, we have this conflict between what is socially ethical versus what we consider to be ethical as an individual. 

The only real sense of ethics in my opinion is what we consider to be right or wrong as an individual rather than as a society. Each person has a different belief in what is right or wrong based on different experiences throughout ones life. However this is often rejected in favor of going with social conduct in order not to be seen as an outcast or a black sheep. This type of behavior probably goes back to our animal pack like mentally not wanting to leave the group as it provides protection, thus we are willing to suppress our individual ethical or moral beliefs in order to conform to societies beliefs so that we do not become taboo, out cased or simply alone. I think that's the root fear of what i am saying, the feeling of being alone or separate. We would rather have an authority take responsibility for our morals than take responsibility and development of our own ethical beliefs. If we take a theoretical example of a period of time when no laws are in action, i wonder how many people would start to commit would what have been considered crime? I think the logically outcome of this would be that individuals will seek out people who have similar ethical standards or beliefs as themselves in order to create a pack , tribe , group or even society in order to feel protection from those who no longer have such ethics. Thus you would have different groups of people with different ethical or moral conduct eventually leading to whoever has the strongest will or largest following becoming the new authority and the cycle starts over again. Order out of chaos. 

Another point to consider is the possibility of a collective unconscious set of universal morals that we are born with and learn to develop within our selves. In this case we can see the moral teachings been provided by the archetypes of the mother and the father to the child. I tend to like this line of thinking because it suggests that deep down we all agree and share a collection unity of emotional ethical conduct that we learn from what is generally considered to universal archetypal forces of consciousness. In this case the ethics only become distorted in so far as the conscious mind or society is willing to switch off or ignore that which is unconsciously active and true. Yet perhaps the most interesting of all views on such an discussion would be the conception of polarity. If ethics boil down to what is right or wrong, good or bad. We have an inherent duality ,each needing the other in order to manifest, just like the story of the Garden of Eden when Adam eats from the tree of good and evil but in doing so learns what is good or evil. The duality is then two sides of the same coin, a unified completeness only seen by the distorted perceptions of indvidual consciousness as separate. It is in the separation that learning is possible and the conscious develop of ones own morals or ethics would be then of key important in the discovery of who one really is.

[ScottK]

Let me just add a few notes.  You are definitely considering the key questions related to authority.

The Abrahamic Law was superceded later by Jesus.  The concept of a jury has origins in Jesus' Apostles, and the notion of Common Law came into being from that.  Common Law is where there are few written laws but the interpretation of who was right and who was wrong is made by a Jury who use their innate understanding of right/wrong to make the decision.  Common Law is synonymous with Natural Law too.

There were various flavors of this that came into being -Old English Common Law, English Common Law, etc.  The problem with many of the common law systems that came into being was that the common law applied to the "subjects" and the King or Queen could do whatever they wished to the subjects.

Most people don't know this but the United States was founded on the principle of Common Law for all - even though it doesn't remotely look like that today.  "We The People" has a very deep meaning in law.  "The People" established the government, so therefore "The People" are the Kings and Queens of the land.  The Founding Fathers for the United States knew what they were doing.  The Common Law of the People was above the Constitution and Government, with respect to status in law.

The problem is that Common Law can fall apart if the people are not ethical.  The way that I would think of it is that some people have systematically repressed their conscience.  This lack of ethics is what drives the need for the Abrahamic-like laws, which is written law such as statutory law or the Ten Commandments for that matter.  That's probably why the elite always seem to promote poor behavior, since a set of elite controllers won't thrive if there's no reason for them to exist!

As I would see it, the fourth density society will spread from a seed of those who bind together to live ethically under Common Law.  I don't believe that group would be considered an authority because there would be no law written down..

This is a channeling with some real wisdom related to the concepts behind freedom and law:

http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/is..._0304.aspx

[TheFifty9Sound]

Here is an excerpt from Another Roadside Attraction by Tom Robbins, you might find useful in your musings -

"Whether a man is a criminal or a public servant is purely a matter of perspective. Man's peculiarly ambivalent psyche permits him to operate simultaneously according to two opposing codes. There is the code which he professes to live by, and there is the code to whose standards he actually does adhere. The deceit is so ingrained and subtle that most men truly are unaware of it, although to psychologists, philosophers and the like, it is no news at all.

Man is not as good as he thinks he is. (Nor as bad, for that matter, but let's not complicate things.) He has certain needs, demands certain services which in reality are probably healthy and natural, but to which in time's passage and as a result of odd quirks in his ethos, he has ascribed (or allowed his religious leaders -- often guilt warped, psychopathic misfits -- to ascribe) negative values. In the queerest of paradoxical metamorphoses, honest desires change into taboos.

To simply "say" that a desire is immoral -- or, resorting to even flimsier abstraction, to deem the fulfilment of a desire illegal -- does not eliminate the desire. It does not eliminate anything except straightforwardness. It creates, in addition to a climate of deception, an underworld into which men "descend" in order to partake of Code B services not permitted under the provisions of Code A. Society hires armed goons to force itself to conform to Code A, but a greater sum of money is spent each year in the surreptitious enjoyment of the services provided by Code B. The underworld persists because society needs it, insists upon it, supports it (at the same time that it denies and persecutes it, of course)."