Buddhism and morality

Originally posted by whodey
I don't dispute that the "natural" tendency is to show compassion which is based upon empathy. My only question is why is it natural to have empathy? In short, this is nothing more than the Golden Rule which is to do unto others as you would have them do to you. Right?

If so, why is the Golden Rule the natural rule? I have heard arguements that it is n ned. So why is that? Why the natrual guilt associated with going against the Golden Rule?

When you freely give your time to help someout with a problem, say, and they return a smile of heart-felt gratitude at the end, is it true you think to yourself only:
"God will be glad I did that"
Do you not get your own feeling of happiness and well-being (independent of "God" )? 😕

Do you thnk our co-existence with other humans would be stable if we did not have in-built such a mechanism?

Originally posted by Agerg
When you freely give your time to help someout with a problem, say, and they return a smile of heart-felt gratitude at the end, is it true you think to yourself only:
"God will be glad I did that"
Do you not get your own feeling of happiness and well-being (independent of "God" )? 😕

Do you thnk our co-existence with other humans would be stable if we did not have in-built such a mechanism?

That is just it. We often instinctively desire to uphold the Golden Rule devoid of thinking about God in the mix. It is simply how we are "wired".

Having said that, Christianity either picked up on this well known fact and created their theology around it or Christ was right in that this is God's law we are inclined to follow. In fact, Biblically love is at the heart of all of God's laws and, as a result, is the motivating factor for all that we do. God is even said to be defined as "love".

So if God were left out of the equation, where does that leave us? That leaves us with the notion that love is the law written in our hearts devoid of an author. Arguements then deteriorate into how this "evolved" inside us for survival purposes. We then must come to the conclusion that the notion of "love" is simply a tool for our personal benefit. The problem is, this definition of love is not the one written in my heart. In fact, this definition is repulsive to such a degree that I can in no way accept it, especially in light of my own feelings about being willing to lay down my life for those I love.

Originally posted by whodey
That is just it. We often instinctively desire to uphold the Golden Rule devoid of thinking about God in the mix. It is simply how we are "wired".

Having said that, Christianity either picked up on this well known fact and created their theology around it or Christ was right in that this is God's law we are inclined to follow. In fact, Biblically love i in light of my own feelings about being willing to lay down my life for those I love.

Firstly what does one mean when they say such and such is or isn't written in their heart (in particular you say a particular definition of love is not written in your heart)...hearts are for pumping blood around our bodies. I'm not actually purposely being dimwitted here, just that romantic fuzzy terminology like this doesn't make sense to me. (Yes I used the word "heart-felt" earlier but it was used more as a colloquially, and well agreed measure of magnitude)

Anyway, you reject it foremost because it does not include "God"...and find it repugnant as such. I and others however don't.
I don't like the idea that the base materials which form my body have probably in some form or another has passed through the digestive tracts of many other animals or humans before I make use of it now...I still like being me though!

Originally posted by whodey
That is just it. We often instinctively desire to uphold the Golden Rule devoid of thinking about God in the mix. It is simply how we are "wired".

Having said that, Christianity either picked up on this well known fact and created their theology around it or Christ was right in that this is God's law we are inclined to follow. In fact, Biblically love i ...[text shortened]... in light of my own feelings about being willing to lay down my life for those I love.

You're (as usual) completely missing the point. What someone feels does not require justification. It arises from the circumstances of existence. It is not fashioned by a will even if you cannot imagine that things happen without a will driving them. You're still analyzing the board looking for advantage. That is the base delusion. There is no board and no pieces in conflict.

Originally posted by whodey
That is just it. We often instinctively desire to uphold the Golden Rule devoid of thinking about God in the mix. It is simply how we are "wired".

Having said that, Christianity either picked up on this well known fact and created their theology around it or Christ was right in that this is God's law we are inclined to follow. In fact, Biblically love i ...[text shortened]... in light of my own feelings about being willing to lay down my life for those I love.

The Golden Rule has emerged independently in different and distant societies, certainly at least 500 years before the Christian Era. From this you might infer that this is how we are wired (in your words). If so, I do not see that it follows that we "must come to the conclusion" this is selfish. You appear to me to throw away your own inference. If we are wired to love generously then we are not wired to love selfishly (or maybe we do both, but not purely selfishly). The Golden Rule is not an imposition against our natures - it is based on serious thinking about what is our nature. If we ask - how can we be sure to act justly, or morally towards others, the Golden Rule expresses a very simple and adequate prescription.

Altruism is not a possibility which emerges through a philosophy - it is an evident feature of social life which any philosophy must take into account. It is not even uniquely human.

Plato gets into a mess in his dialogues trying to support his premise - and that of Sophocles - that Justice (for which read morality) is necessarily in my best interests. I think he fails.

Sociobiologists who argue that altruism is ultimately selfish also have a particular attitude which can be argued against. In particular, I would argue that cooperation is part of our nature. While that may indeed have survival benefits, these benefits are intrinsic, not something we need to calculate. We are not altruistic in order to survive - we survive because we are altruistic.