Morality - To Tanvir

[Guest guest]

Tanvir,

 

Your premise is stronger than ur arguments ... hence my complain lies more

with the arguments than the premise ...

 

Morality comes when u look at things in Black/White perspective which is

almost always inadequate, What makes more sense is Justice assuming it lies

somewhere between the different lines of thoughts we use to justify means to

ends ...

 

Arguments about plants and vegetarians are not good enuff because in life if

you have to always choose among evils, you end up choosing lesser of the evils

.... if you dont eat anything you die, it is equally as bad as killing animals ..

 

Same goes for rest ... ultimately, what one should learn is to avoid trying to

be judgemental in our thought/deed or acts and that in my opinion is a lifetimes

work and the true message of god ...

 

Surya.

 

Tanvir <ultimate wrote:

Dear all,

 

I am writing some thoughtful articles in my personal website and I thought that

I would share a recently written one with you :-)

 

I know this might be irrelevant as it has nothing to do with astrology but to me

it is needed to clear up the vision about religion, ethics, dharma, morals,

karma, etc. which an astrologer has to deal with all the times.

 

 

Regards

Tanvir

 

 

What cannot happen, can never happen.

Which is mine, is forever mine.

 

http://www.jyotish-remedies.com - Vedic Astrology (Jyotish)

Predictive astrology with incredibly powerful problem solving remedies

Where relief and solutions are found

 

 

 

 

============================================

Morality

 

Morality, though is defined and used very easily by all of us, is a vogue idea

itself. Ultimately, nothing is immoral.

 

I would start from giving very straight forward examples to provoke some

thoughts.

 

Killing someone or something is perhaps the most immoral action we can think of.

But if we think well, we cannot really live without killing. How? It is very

clear.

 

We kill hens, cocks and cows to get chicken and beef. People also eat mutton,

pork, fishes, and so many things. Eating these cannot be done without killing.

Even eggs - yes, there is a hidden life in it.

 

Vegetarian people will now suggest eating vegetarian diets because that is no

killing. But is that really the truth? Eating vegetarian for the sake of no

killing was (perhaps) introduced when people probably thought that plants and

trees have no lives. But now days, we know they do. A tree needs foods to

survive (Like water, sunlight etc.) and it can reproduce and have all the

qualities of a living being. So, they fully have lives. It cannot be doubted or

questioned who recognizes the validity of science.

 

Now, vegetarians argue that trees and plants do have lives but they do not

"feel" pain like creatures like fishes, hens, cows so we can eat them, that is

not immoral. But it is strongly argued because when a small tree is put near a

window, the tree will by days, gradually move or grow it's branches to the

windows because it 'feels' that the sunlight is there so it wants to move there.

So it can feel. I am not sure about this because I have not done enough studies,

but logically, they should. May be people who studied botany or something like

this can answer clearly. But even a one-celled Ameba can feel pain or discomfort

then trees also must do.

 

So it actually is not a valid argument that eating vegetarian is not killing.

Logically, they do have lives, so eating them is killing. They do have lives,

and eating them means putting an end to their lives. So, it cannot be anything

but killing.

 

Rice grains are basically "rice plant eggs" as new rice plants would come out of

them. So a person denying to eat eggs should also deny eating rice.

 

Just because a tree cannot moan or yell or cannot express it's feelings directly

does not mean uprooting them is not killing. Come on, be practical !

 

In that case if we want to stop killing, we cannot survive. Very clearly, our

body needs nutrition to survive and that nutrition can come from something that

has/had some life-material / organic compounds in them. We cannot really have

nutrition from non-organic materials like irons, plastics, etc. etc.

 

So basically, our own bodies must sustain from eating "others bodies" means a

body of a cow (beef) or a body of a hen (chicken) or a body of a tree (leaves,

vegetables) or some organic parts that is yet to be a body (eggs, rice etc).

 

Trees are silent cannot really imply that they do not have desires to live. They

do not want to die, for sure. A tree moving it's branches from shadow to bright

sunlight clearly shows it wants to survive. That is the nature of any living

entity, for sure.

 

Can we really live without killing? Let us look closer.

 

Our body everyday destroys uncountable germs like viruses, bacterias etc.

Sometimes we take medicines and therapies to destroy them, but our bodies always

are destroying them silently all the times which are weaker or known to the body

itself. But logically, they do have lives, and they want to survive. But then,

they cause us diseases. So to be healthy, we must kill them. So is not this

killing immoral? But without being this immoral, we cannot survive ourselves.

Even our body itself destroys such germs everyday without even asking us. So

what does it mean? It directly shows we need to kill trees, plants, mammals etc.

to thrive ourselves by nutrition, as well as for our own protection, we need to

kill those germs like viruses etc.

 

One possible argument is the viruses are making us sick and leading us to death

that is why it is not immoral to kill them. They are harmful to us so we can

kill them. Come on. . . we are also harmful to cows, hens and other animals same

way. If eating beef, chicken and vegetables are not immoral, then what bad the

viruses are doing by entering our body and trying to get nutrition?

 

So another dilemma occurs, what we really should do then? If I am in a jungle,

and a tiger attacks me, should I not run and rather offer myself as his food?

Hm. . . I will try to escape or even kill the tiger if I can. So, it is being

selfish to protect my own self, not to offer myself as others' food. And then,

cows, hens, trees have this same right not to offer their lives, or sacrificing

their selves. But just because we are stronger and smarter, we kill them anyway.

Same way we kill viruses to protect our selves. Then, it shows the ultimate

selfishness going on everywhere in the nature itself. The strong one killing

another weak one to thrive and to protect itself. How can we say then that we

should not be selfish or immoral about such and such things in life?

 

Some will say that we human are the best creature so we can kill hens and cows

for our nutrition and we can also kill viruses to be disease-free. The virus

dilemma part is discussed earlier through tiger example. The other part, killing

cows and hens for nutrition being superior creature (or superior animals?) is

much of an Islamic idea. (As per Islam the world is the domain of mankind for

it's own benefit and consumption etc.) So then, the argument comes, that if we

are superior because we are smarter than other animals and we are more

knowledgeable? If so, then does it mean that the value of a knowledgeable

person's life is much than an illiterate dumb person's one? If we say yes, it

goes against our common standard of moral. (And then it can be also argued that

the value of rich people's lives are more than the poor ones, that sounds more

immoral and of inhumanity!) If if not, then we must conclude that the values of

everyone's lives are equal irrespective of their knowledge. That

is for sure. Because, all feel pain. A knowledgeable person will feel pain to

die, but will not a dumb person feel the same pain? Who's pain is stronger? Can

you really measure?

 

One can argue that a knowledgeable person can offer the mankind many things so

he has better rights to live (Than a dumb one). But then, it is again against of

our common moral values. We are talking a lot about discrimination of sex, age,

caste, nationality these days. We are also talking about not hating the poor.

Slavery also has been uprooted long back. So?

 

If if we accept that a knowledgeable person's life values more, but then. . .

hey, you can never know who is dumb and who is brilliant. You can never know who

is going to offer what revolution in the future. Many scientists were 'dumb' in

their early age, while schooling. Even an illiterate person can offer great

revolutionary ideas and gift the mankind many things. It once happened in our

country long back that a young poor boy living in a slum once saved an entire

train from accident and saved hundreds of lives! He noted the breakage of the

rail line and altered the incoming train by moving his red shirt.

 

So, such debate leads us to the conclusion that all have equal values of lives.

Then, we cannot kill cocks, cows, trees, or even viruses! But then we cannot

live either. So we understand, being selfish and immoral is the basic rule of

this world. Of the creation. We cannot really talk about being selfish or moral

while in each and every steps of our lives we are being selfish and immoral.

 

Long back in my astrology discussion forum the topic of black magic was being

discussed and one guy asked (all) that if it is okay to try winning a girl with

qualification, smartness, skills (Like singing), appearance etc., why would it

be immoral (or unethical) to try winning a girl with black magic? Both parties

are using their skills are efforts. So?

 

Thinking very unbiasedly and straightly, such questions become very hard to

answer.

 

If a guy without any qualification tries to impress a beautiful, very qualified

lady, many will say that the guy is actually being unethical, and is trying to

ruin her life by marrying her because she would get a far better guy than him.

Someone will say that if you really love the lady then for her own good do not

marry her because she can find a far better guy so let not her be a looser.

 

But, when one marries someone, he or she can never claim that it was the best

match for him or her. We see it everywhere, very great looking girls marrying

ugly boys (and vice versa), very rich people marrying poor ones, very wise

people marrying dumb ladies etc. No one can say that he would not get a better

match. Of course he would. May be a far better lady would be interested to marry

him but just she did not meet him. This happens everywhere.

 

And now the question occurs - if you really know that your spouse can get a

better partner then are not you cheating your spouse or making him or her a

looser or putting him or her at loss?

 

The thin (or non-existing) boundary of morality and immorality can best be felt

with such examples.

 

In business we come across some practices which are often called unethical. Some

of them are even illegal, too. Such strategies include selling a product for a

lower price than it's production cost, or in simple words, selling it at loss.

What happens there, that for the lowest price in the market, only that product

is sold and the other companies cannot sell their products with a higher price.

Smaller companies would not be able to survive this competition and would lose

and quit the market. Then, the company practicing this strategy will be the only

one in the market and can sell his same product for 3 times more because the

buyers really do not have a choice now.

 

Such practices and more serious practices than this are either 'unethical' and

often illegal, too. But if there are other clever (yet not illegal) business

strategies to win the market, it becomes impossible to answer why this

particular strategy will be unethical or illegal. All the companies try their

best to cut down the cost to offer a lower price to bit the competitors. So?

 

Another practice which is surely illegal (at least in our country) is to store

crops and stuff for a long time so it is out of supply and only then taking it

out of the storage and selling it for a higher price. Comparing it to other

legitimate business strategies, it becomes impossible to answer why it was made

illegal. Monopoly is never illegal, right? And what is about 'free market' and

'free economy' terms we use?

 

Big companies fight each other in many clever ways. Even job applicants do so.

In such cases, ethics and illegal practices are hard to be differentiate and

logically, if one strategy is legal, the other similar one cannot be illegal. I

read in our book that some merchandise store (May be buy.com, not sure) started

selling their product just for buying price or sometimes even lower than the

buying price and their dialogue is that, we offer you the lowest price in the

earth. Clearly, others cannot sell at buying price or for lower. So they will

definitely lose in competition. But what the company does, that when they sell

for the least price, the rush or traffic in their sites increases a lot, and so,

they increase the advertisement charge of their website a lot, and thus they

make up the loss of selling products at a lower price!!!

 

Such business strategies are simply "business strategies" only and if one is

marked legal, others cannot remain illegal. They all should be legal, in my

view. Because each of us is trying to get the best out of our lives, whether in

jobs, career, romance, marriage, money, business or anything. It is very simple.

 

Suicide is illegal. I wonder, why? I really wonder. Everyone wants to live, and

when a person wants to die then it means he or she is having so much problem or

pain or grief in the life that he wants to end it. Only ending the life may be

the end of the grief sometimes. If you are in a jungle loaded by ferocious

creatures, you may escape the jungle. But when your life itself is full of pain

or agony that you can never forget for single moment, all you can think about if

to escape from the life itself ie suicide. It is you who wants to end your life

because you cannot carry the grief anymore, and who is law (or Govt) to

interfere. I really do not understand. I really do not.

 

We see people suicide for many reasons. Raped ladies suicide because they cannot

carry the insult or agony of being raped, they cannot think of facing society, a

big part of which would rather insult her this way and that way and reject her

through all the possible ways. A read in a newspaper that few months ago a

hungry KID suicide because she could not tolerate hunger for any longer. (And no

one offered her food, including the ones who would mark suicide as illegal.)

 

Some can argue that one has responsibilities for family and parents etc. so he

cannot suicide. He cannot make others sorry by suicide. Oh, cool. If I am being

fair and moral by taking pain to make YOU happy, then are YOU being moral by

making me pained to make YOURSELF happy?

 

You cannot make a person feel better in his pain or problem, but you cannot let

him end his life either. basically, you force him or her to be in or to carry

this painful life. And this is the civilization, this is the humanity !!

 

Well, this is 1.17 AM right now, I think it is enough as of now. Going to sleep

as I have an exam tomorrow (Selfishness!) ; the rest (if any) would be written

as the later parts.

 

=====================

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SURRENDER JOYFULLY TO THE WILL OF THE ULTIMATE DIVINITY AND RELISH THE TASTE OF

ABSOLUTE BLISS.

 

 

 

 

 

Vedic astrology Astrology chart Astrology software

 

 

 

 

Visit your group "" on the web.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail

Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.