I find Buddhism to be the only 'guideline'; psychology, way of life, etc. to be suitable for myself. Does anyone on here have any experience with it? Also, Buddhism is not a religion just so no one gets worked up about it.

yah, buddhism reflects life. hard work tho

The whole karma concept seems like wishful thinking, "pie in the sky," and can be easily manipulated to make people "behave," act in the way a Ruling Elite wants them to
Taoism works better, if you just read the books and develop your own sense of the way. I know nothing of "organized" Taoism, but I've heard it's creepy.
Read Lao-Tse and Chuang-Tsu (there are tons of translations), and take it from there.

this thread needs to be moved to the relgion, politics, philosophy forum

its more like self awareness than philosophie or religion. practical stuff

How does Buddhism work, then? If it's not a religion, it presumably doesn't say anything about any god? In which case, it can't say anything about morality. But then it can't provide any guidance for life. I thought it was, usually, considered a religion.

Note: Emphasis added

Your conclusion does not logically follow. Morality can exist without either a god or religion. Ethics is basically the objective study of how people should behave, and ethics has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

you make some leaps bro

buddism says stop perseverating and take things as you find them. then you relax and happy up

eta: my reply was to brucecm

This post was last modified: 11-12-2010 07:36 PM by jiri_k.

Logic fail.

This post was last modified: 11-12-2010 07:46 PM by piePIEpie.

Really? So what? Unless logic is God! From where get any morality, otherwise?

Objective study of how people should behave would have to be done by something other than people.

No. Logic is objective. The basis of logic is the fact that, given a common set of axioms, it is possible for two rational individuals with no common experience whatsoever to draw the same conclusions. It is therefore possible that, given a few common needs that rational individuals have (food, shelter, etc.), and their right to have those needs fulfilled, a system of ethics can be constructed that rational people will agree on, no matter what culture the rational person comes from. If you choose to define your deity as being logic based on this fact, so be it.

Firstly, not all people agree with many 'axioms'. Secondly, it's often possible to come to different conclusions. Present some if you really want to support your case.

1. There are things that all rational people need to live a good life. For example: Food, shelter, water, health, etc. Beyond these basic needs, axioms can be rationally debated, and you can choose one over the other. However, basic necessities are not negotiable. Everyone needs food. Everyone needs shelter. Therefore, everyone has a right to food and shelter, within the limits of what society is able to provide.

2. If two rational individuals agree on a set of well-chosed axioms, and the logic used is based on sound reasoning, then any conclusions will necessarily match up. You will note that I said "well-chosen", to prevent the consideration of a logical system in which two axioms contradict each other, or necessarily lead to contradictory conclusions.


You asked for an example:
Axiom 1: Every individual has a right to live.

-Depriving a person of this moral right is morally wrong.

Conclusion 1: Murder is morally wrong.

However: There are times when the rights of two individuals to live will come into conflict. For example, it may be necessary to kill an attacker to save your own life.

Axiom 2: Every individual has the right to safeguard his/her rights within the framework of society.

-If, through no fault of your own, you find yourself at risk of losing your life, you are justified in defending your right to live. If this means taking the life of an attacker, your action is morally justified because the attacker is engaged in a moral wrong by attempting to deprive you of your right to life.

Conclusion 2: Taking a life is morally justified if the person who is killed would have deprived you of your right to life.

-This conclusion generalizes to others. For example, if a man tries to kill your neighbor without provocation, you are still justified in killing the attacker.



I challenge you to take the axioms provided and reach a conclusion that differs from Conclusions 1 and 2.

Note: I do not advocate taking life in all instances of rights violations. I also left out a lot of caveats that a proper ethical system would have (for instance, you are not justified in taking a life because someone deprived you of your right to food by stealing an apple). I am merely generating an example of a self-consistent ethical system to prove that it can be done.

euthanasia