Karma and Morality.

I don't buy into good and evil being real, observable, things. Such concepts are so varied that they are merely constructs of an individuals mind.

Shawn, if you are implying that I have never observed any form of karma because I have never experienced anger, and always act out of self preservation, then I guess I really can't properly argue this without using another person, but I wouldn't be able to properly measure the results anyway. Still, it sounds like a bunch of nonsense.

You say that magic is a lot more scientific and alot less spiritual. Your forgeting that magick is a science and an ARTFORM Also in magic, spiritualty and beleif can be used as a tool. So if your disregarding that aspect of magic then your missing a half of magic. On the animal thing, animals do what is best for there species. At times that can include self-sacrifice, which many would believe is moral thing to do. I believe that we are all born with a distinct sense of right and wrong that woild later develop as we grow older but has become tempered with as we grew up in our area. Sociopaths, i beleive show us that there is a big difference between morality and immorality. Sociopaths do not feel morality. They can do horrible, gruesome things without feeling the slightist bit of remorse. And if morality was something that was taught as we grew up, then why didnt these people catch the lesson. Many grow up in perfectly normal lives. That implies that something they had at birth caused caused these peoples imorality. And if something the had at birth there caused there imorality, then something at our birth causes our morality.

You seem to say that morality is in the mind as if that is some saet of blow to the concept of morality. Of course morality is in the mind. Why would it not be. That dosent disprove morality, it merely isolates it. And from a christian point of veiw that does make morality universal. If morality is in my mind, i am based on gods image, them god and me must share some sense of morality.

You are trying to explain a bunch of paradoxes ...whats the point. You take a look at Karma it says things will return to you in a set way. If you steal something you might never get caught , doesent mean it wont affect your life , a moral and immoral action wont produce a moral and immoral outcome respectfully, a good person could be framed for something they didnt do just by associating with someone , and never be set free. You keep speaking about the rules of the universe as if there was a brochure saying "All knowledge" on your table , most knowledge will never be in anyones grasp , not a humans , not a gods. What might exist and what might not is truly irrelevant until you see something for yourself you cannot be sure of anything , you can say you are but that does not mean you are being honest with yourself , if you were sure of something you wouldnt seek more answers on it. Humans are specific we are caught between two worlds , the animal world and divinity. We are neither , and both we strive for to preserve both what we are as humans and progress into something higher , we are beings of true balance , and true balance is something that always wobbles and changes.

I had someone ask me about this post, and I wrote quite a lengthy response, so I felt I shall post my thoughts as well. (I apologize in advance if I repeat any of the above comments)

The assumption that only humans have morals is a dangerous one. Not because there is evidence of "moral codes" among animals but because you first have to address why humans have morals.

Let's assume all behavior, both animal or human, is essentially selfishly based on survival. Why would you help another person? The current understanding of the evolution driving this is that in helping another individual either this action will be observed by others and grant the animal more potential mates or that in some point in the future this action will be reciprocated when you need help.

This can be seen in Narwhals, the Narwhal tusk is an extended protruding tooth and so has a nerve supply running right down it. Older male Narwhals often break their tusk which is considerably painful, if you imagine bathing a broken tooth in arctic salt water you can appreciate just how painful. Younger males will then "cap" the broken tusk by breaking the end of their tusk off into the whole putting themselves into considerable pain for the sake of the weaker elder, the younger's tusk will eventually regrow but he is risking extreme pain and potential infection for an unrelated rival. The currently hypothesized reason for this is that the male will then receive more females for his generosity towards other males (which the female expects will mean a more nurturing and stronger father as he is able to survive with a broken tusk).

To put a human perspective on this, you have two equally attractive people in front of you. One is a serial killer, the other volunteers at an adoption center for disabled puppies, which is more appealing? Karma is actually a sound biological principle in that doing good deeds makes others smile on you, even if the good deed was not in their favor, and so are more likely to treat you well or help you when you have your own spin of bad luck.

Entropy will always lead to eventual equillibrium. This can be seen many times throughout nature. The hardy weinburg principle of genetics is a good example even though it never truly hapens in nature. So if we had a a universe of complete entropy we would eventually reach equillibrium. I would imagine this works with human action. Every action has an equil and opposite reaction so eventually moral equillibrium will be reached. In one way or another

Not sure if I should be offended as a sociopath or not... I don't really care though. I would never go out of my way to harm someone without some form of logical reason to do so. and that's what's widely misunderstood about this disease. It's not about just lacking remorse and harming for no reason, it's about ring able to calculate risk and reward act on the decision, and not be held back by irrationality. We lack emotion, we don't lack reason. Similar to how animals would kill for things like food, shelter, protection, and to defend what is theirs. My sense of morality is simply based on the information provided by the world around me as to what would prove beneficial, and what would not. In most cases, murder is not beneficial, because I don't gain anything for the effort put forth, and being unable to be emotionally effected, such as angered or saddened or what have you, it's entirely about gains and losses.

I doubt you are a true sociopath. Being a sociopath isnt a "disease" we do not know what it is. Sociopaths do not care about life and many of the more violent sociopaths are not logical. Killing for no reason at all and paying no mind to the consequences. However not all sociopaths are killers. They can become great buissness men. The most popular job amoung sociopaths is surgeon. Since they do not really care about the life they hold in there hands.

Regardless as to weather Xyra is a sociopath or not, as it is not the purpose of the thread and I can see it rapidly getting into an argument, you do not need emotions to appreciate the necessity of morality. Even on an effort and reward basis the idea behind the development of morals is an expected gain.

Think of it as giving a friend a gift, you spend $10 on a present, you have now lost $10. Later on in the future you receive a present from that friend worth at at least $10. You may have lost money which you didn't directly need and in the process gained the chance to get a new item that you might have needed. At this point you've drawn even however now that there is a working relationship behind this the other individual is likely do be more reciprocal in the future. Additionally though if all and all your other friends saw the gift then by the time your birthday comes around they all get you a gift of that approximate value under the assumption that it will be returned. So for the $10 investment you are now up, assuming you have 5 friends, to $50. Now the argument continues that you are expected to buy each a gift in return, and you are because if you stop then so will they. You can "cash out" at any point by stopping buying the gifts but in order to continue benefiting you must remain a part of the tradition.

That is the implication of karma. If you view karma as solely human interactions and not a divine force then so long as you are buying those gifts you are experiencing an ever increasing amount of positive karma (as each time you buy a gift an additional four people will buy you one in return). If you were to stop with the tradition you no longer experience the positive karma. With negative karma let's say you steel someone's gift off them, because everyone sees this they no longer trust you around there gifts and thus you get excluded from the whole gift giving circle. Obviously this is a basic and simplistic example however the same principle applies in many natural situations, for example grooming in primates, the Narwhal tusk examples, looking after an unrelated individual's young as seen in many wolf packs and social animals.