[Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas

Joy Vriens joy.vriens at gmail.com
Fri Jun 11 08:46:41 MDT 2010

Hi Dan,

> But we are talking about ethics, not history (nor Joy's Mother Nature --
> you
> folks certainly do worship at a variety of pujas).

We (me and my saktis) are Yes-sayers, we worship life and *She*-who-must-be-

> Which is why people need to take up the responsibility of ethical
> consideration of their actions, since neither history, nor nature, nor the
> other guy, will do it for you. Of course, you can choose not not protect
> innocent people nor curtail wrongdoers -- but then don't pretend such
> negligence has ethical justification.

"Choose not to protect innocent people" ? Who is setting the rules of the
game, who decides there is a game to play in the first place and that
everybody has to join in and therefore choose? What is there to win? A sort
of certification of being a "good man" and of being on the right side and
recognition as such? Like dogs sniffing other dog's bums?

Is the game on all the time and continuously? Would it be immoral or amoral
to not join the game? Would that make one responsible for everything that
goes wrong in the world? Whereas those who at least tried and messed up
things terribly would be moral? Is display of "good will" enough?

And "innocent people". As long as individuals are part of nations, people,
groups etc., consider themselve as such and are considered as such, there is
not much personal choice and the adjactive "innocent" doesnt' mean much. As
a member of various groups, we can of course accept the ethics of those
groups, like we eat when we are hungry and drink when we are thirsty. One
can take aboard the ethics of one's group along with other obligations
without adhering indivually and feeling one makes a choice on a personal
level. Or not ? :-)

More information about the buddha-l mailing list