--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > But what is considered ethical varies widely and changes > > > > constantly. Where do you find an unchanging standard? > > > > > > As the term is generally used in Buddhism, ethics > > > comes from within and never changes; it implies a > > > sensitivity to one's own internal "meter" of right > > > and wrong. What is external and changes from time > > > to time and country to country is morality. Ethics > > > and morality are not the same. Codes of behavior > > > established by society or religion are thought of > > > as falling into the realm of morality, *not* ethics. > > > > Well, of course that's not the standard definition of > > ethics, but no matter. > > > > If "ethics" in the Buddhist sense "comes from within," > > exactly how does that differ from the premise that > > the enlightened person acts spontaneously according to > > the laws of nature? > > The aspect of choice. In this view, the enlightened > person has the same choice available to him that he > had before realization. One still runs into quandaries; > one still has to resolve them; nothing resolves them > for you.
As I've already noted, the idea that one has choice before enlightenment but not after is a straw man (see wayback's earlier post). That isn't what is implied by acting spontaneously according to the laws of nature. In the latter view there's no difference in "choice" before and after enlightenment. > > And how can anybody else judge whether someone is > > acting "ethically" if that person's ethics "comes from > > within"? > > One probably can't, except via intuition. Some of > us trust our intuition more than we trust intellectual > arguments or morality passed down from a tradition. Intuition as to whether a person is acting according to his/her own internal "ethics," you mean? Or do you mean whether the person is acting according to *your* internal sense of ethics? > > Individual, internal ethics provides a "standard" only > > for the individual. > > And? > > Why should there be a "standard?" You were contrasting the Buddhist view of "ethics" with external "morality" as a standard. It refers to my question above as to how one can judge whether another is acting "ethically" if the other person is acting based on his/her own internal "ethics," which may be different from yours. > > And are you suggesting that a > > person's *internal* ethics is unchanging, in contrast > > to "morality"? > > One's *access* to an internal sense of ethics is > unchanging. Whether or not one avails onself of > it is again a matter of choice. But what one has access *to* can change, then? ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
