Dear KRS, few clarifications,keeping in mind our old conversation.. Please dont mistake me,that Im running around the same pillar....
>>But let us make sure that the 'knowledge' you specify here is not the ultimate 'Knowledge' about the 'source'>>
Hope Im not picking lines in between!!!... You seems to agree with me in the usage of term 'Ultimate' for referring God.. If I understood you right, you seems to infer, God as the 'Ultimate source for Knowledge' (or) an 'Ultimate knowledge' only can tak one towards God''...In this light, I add here, yet another trait 'moral', and would say, that, 'Ultimate Moral and Justice also lies in God".... this is my logical interpretation..Correct me if I'm wrong..
'Ultimate' means which contains ALL. Not a particular 'name' or 'label' 'Moral and Justice'. For every attribute there is an opposite, which is also part of the 'Ultimate'. So, for every 'Moral' there is an 'Immoral' and for every 'Justice' there is an 'Injustice' which all comprise the Ultimate. Good and bad are part of the Ultimate. You somehoe seperate the anti attribute from the Ultimate. Why?
Secondly, about your point of 'Relative Morality', I have lots to share.. May be in due course of time, we can touch that topic..Richard Dawkins may possibly support your views..
Don't know him. Will read up.
>>will you wantonly kill a person? Will you seduce your friend's wife? My assumption is that you would say 'no'. Why is that? Is it because of your upbringing?>>
My Mom&Grandpa used nag me daily,that 'God told us not to steal'. She told me to mug up that term too.Yes, I didnt steal candies/biscuits/Murukku from kitchen, not because of God, but because of my mom said so, in the name of a person called God.But when I went to High-School (3kms away from Mom's sight), me and my classmates had a daily habit of parking the bicycle, and steal mangoes, and I never felt anything wrong in it. And I had no social pressure not to steal (as you & Richard dawkins claims), cos I know neither my mom nor my folks or men-of-town/Cops knew,that I've indulged in stealing. And all my school mates said, its ok to steal a mango,cos its few paisa worth.. But then, I know I wont indulge in that, cos, I have a personal conviction in the name of God.
God is just a name. I am sure your friends who wanted to steal mango also have been told in their homes the same thing you were told. Your personal conviction came about partly from your upbringing and partly because of your 'Guna'.
For eg, yesterday, me and my friend had a heated argument with a grocer, for doing an intentional over invoicing in my last weeks purchase . When I reached home, I found that, the grocer had forgotten to invoice items in the recent purchase.. I called up my friend and narrated this .. He said, "Good, finally he paid the price, for all the cheating he did in past'..At the outset, I felt OK with that logic.. but deep inside, I felt, that what Im doing is wrong, based upon my moral convictions to a higher authority than my MOM or my FRIEND... Above all I have no social pressures on this particular incidence, rather I have my friends support, not to return the goods back. Myself, as a guy who used stole mangoes once as a habit, this is no way wrong. But my conviction towards God has only drove me to act like this..(Btw, this is just a personal narration, and I dont present it as a base for my argument here).. In my view, God could be the Ultimate for everything, including Morals and Judgments.
You need a 'God' to convince yourself to do the right thing. I actually did the same thing you did many times. Not because my 'God' told me to do so. But in the society where I live in that is wrong. And so I acted accordingly.
>>>>Let us say, the person whose wife you bed knows about it and approves, and his wife also wants it, and you do not have a wife, is it wrong?>>>
Its an intersting point which I wanted to share some time before.. I have read this logic in Buddhisms subsect, (dont remember the name, possibly Dharavada,though not sure), that it tells 4 ways to distinguish Right and Wrong.. Its says that, if an act is acceptable to both of those players, then that is no wrong..The counter goes, is it right,atleast? Philosophers say, is there some thing a middle path betwee,right&wrong?.Lets explore further.. if its not wrong (right) to both of the actors, will the whole mankind accept the same as right?. If we take a WORLDVIEW out of this ideology, incest with consent could be right? Assisting someone for a suicide is right? Abetting a criminal, who has helped me once could be right? All types of Debaunchery could be right!! Prostituion happens with the consent!
With consent applies only to ALL the affected parties. If one is left out then it is not consent. In each of your example above, one or several 'affected' parties are left out. 'Interested' party can be a person, a family or a country.
Infanticide/Widowburning happens with consent of all.. Little moving futher, Hitler/Stalin could be right for their citizens, but not for the world..
No not at all. Where is the consent of that infant or that widow? H/S not only killed their own but others in the world. So your logic is not valid.
In this context, the definition of right and wrong, moves out from a personal level to family level, elevates to a social level and end in a Global level? Having WORLDVIEW with that ideology takes us to a different highel level of thought, which is bit confusing and complex and uncomprehendable. The rule at a personal level, is not applicable to a global level.. Whats the answer? This is what our sages has been doing in their pursuit of God... Thats why mankind has sought for an Absolute/Universal Judgement and Moral.. And and easiest answer... Hmm!! Attribute it to God.
By your own saying above, you are admitting that morality is 'relative'. One can not then argue that there is an 'absolute' morality. Mankind will always seek a Universal justice, because it is easy. I would as an infant need a 'mother' or 'father' to tell me what is right. This does not obviate the 'relative' morality. Depends on the societal/civilizational levels.
God has nothing to do with this. This is man made. Rishis did not waste their time on this for this particular reason.
>>>On the other hand you want to acquire knowledge to 'Cure AIDS victims' because you want to make millions of $s, then is it 'right'?>>>
There is an interesting thing that Europe copied from Hinduism,was Monastic life. While our monastic sages pursed Philosophies/Hymns/Rituals/Yoga/Experiencing God, the western monastries tried another route to reach god, by implementing Gods will.. ie, 'Reduce the sufferings of Mankind' in line with gods idea of 'Good samaritan'. They worked on scientific inventions to reduce the suffering/hunger and disease,by opening the first modern day university, educating the public,inventing new farming techniques, hospitals etc (I can share lot about Monastrical inventions).. Both the Himalayan Sages and European monks lived a very simple life inside the four walls, and pursued their Goal towards God in a different way. Did Mother Theresa/Gandhiji/Nobel(TNT),Greger Mendel aim for stashing few million dollars in their attic? Its all about the conviction !!! (Possibly in the name of God)