Moral pitfalls

[ana]

What about the instinctive-motor center of man? We have three potential centers of function. The thinking, feeling and instinctive-motor. Your being, which brings thinking and emotion to every event is still incomplete, falling short of the image of God. You describe a two-brained being, without a physically embodied participation.

The potential problem with a two-brained being with thinking and emotional participation is that instinctive-motor talents, honed over hundreds of millions of years of evolution by great Nature, are disregarded or considered sinful.

The Work aims at the full participation of three centers of function. It is not possible, in Fourth Way terms, for a two-brained being to be fully conscious.
A Real Man or Real Women is fully conscious as a result of thinking(reason), emotion(value of relationship of self and others), and instinctive-motor(survival) functions simultaneously participating in each and every event, including the life raft scenario. Each of the three functions focus attention on the event and share their particular associations with the other two centers. Three separate and equally valued ways of perceiving an event are brought together in a conscious man or woman.

Since a fully conscious three-brained being would be formed in the image of God with the potential for higher center participation, it is interesting to ask the question when one makes life-and-death decisions, "What would God do?" Then I know how far I am from becoming a Real Man.

Thanks for the topic, Ana. It challenges me to examine my life in depth. Now, every moment and every event appears to be a life-and-death experience.

You are right, my apologizes Go2, in my response I was trying to address specifically Happyville input regarding the need to choose between "brain and heart" and obviously my response was incomplete.

 

[Slow Motion Mary]

Hi Slow Motion Mary. Does "thinking with a hammer" refer to using the "whole being" capability, which includes emotional cognition, or does it refer mainly to all the "rational" possibilities you can come up with in the thinking center?

Interestingly, when I read the example to which you refer, I could practically feel the confinement of the author's understanding of people as "oppositional selfs". It's somewhat amazing how much energy can be generated and how many options present themselves to awareness when the ego steps out of the way, no? :)

Hi, Bud! "Thinking with a hammer" involves the "whole being" capability: Emotions are ever-present in a souled human and are a large part of the ego but tend to get in the way of rational thinking. To divest yourself of emotion is to enter organic portal territory, so that is not an option. In the given scenario, it would be important to suppress the emotion in order to effectively deal with the situation. When the "terror of the situation" is over, then you get to bring up the emotion to cleanse yourself, if you so choose. Self-control is all important, not just over the body but the mind as well.

And yes, I am often surprised how much more smoothly life evolves when the ego steps out of the way!

 

[ana]

This is what the Cassiopaea Glossary says about Thinking with a Hammer:

http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=764&lsel=T

In QFS usage, the term thinking with a hammer means approaching the object of thought from all angles. The hammer also implies hammering against one's beliefs and prejudices, creating internal friction by being critical of the thought process itself. Thinking with a hammer is in a sense the opposite of habitual thinking. Thinking with a hammer means forging new paths and connections as opposed to forcing things to fit within the grooves of existing categories. It is expanding one's mind to be at the measure of the questions instead of shrinking the questions to fit the mind's habits. Thinking with a hammer cannot take place in a state of sleep. It needs an application of will and going against one's internal resistance.

 

[Hildegarda]

presenting and dealing with a 'moral dilemma' in such a way as it is done in those articles and studies does not take into account 'the third force' and secondly, is basically deterministic in its nature.

Yes they are. But this is the point of them: they are artificial exercises aimed to isolate and practice a specific trait, skill, or thinking.

It the same as a math problem: Jack had three apples, he gave one to Jill, how many apples he has left. We can start thinking about why he didn't share his apples equally, or why he had to give any to her at all. But the problem is only requiring us to practice basic math, specifically, subtraction skills.

It would be nice to if we never have to use utilitarian thinking in our lives, if we always could take advantage of the third force or some non-linearity. It is not always possible however. For those situations, people have to have rules down what to do to maximize the good of all. Medical triage comes to mind as a prime example. You come to a disaster area with this many personnel and that much supplies, you have this many wounded, who do you help first? In what order? Who is going to be the last?

In fact, I remember reading that the original dilemma that started it was exactly that: it wasn't about throwing people overboard, it was offering people a place in the boat in the order of first priority.

 

[Happyville]

So it seems we need to learn how to use both properly, until they form a good team so we can understand, see and then act consciously, don't you think?

I agree.

I think what makes the boat scenario more layered is that the "boat" adds a third consideration by acting as metaphor of "society"! (more than 1 person joined in a mutual circumstance with common goal.)

So perhaps being more than a strictly "utilitarian" concern, it seems a double edge moral clash - if we consider that a societal / moral obligation is pit against a personal / moral obligation - which makes this conundrum seem more challenging to solve against the thesis of the research!

Thanks for the mind tickler... :)

 

[ana]

I just think that needing to base our decisions on utilitarian choices is just a secondary cause of the system itself limited due to pathological infestation.

Someway our minds have been infested to believe that living in shortage and limitation is part of our natural state. It is not, we wouldn't need to make utilitarian choices if our society was based on the common well and all the efforts were directed to accomplish that end.

For example in the case of medical triage we wouldn't need to purge our minds trying to decide who needs assistance first if there was enough investment in having the necessary health care capacity, and that could be extended to all areas where utilitarian choices are supposed to be the only alternative.

It's like putting a tight shoe on our feet and then wondering which finger we must cut. We must first choose a wide shoe, osit.

 

[obyvatel]

I just think that needing to base our decisions on utilitarian choices is just a secondary cause of the system itself limited due to pathological infestation.

Someway our minds have been infested to believe that living in shortage and limitation is part of our natural state. It is not, we wouldn't need to make utilitarian choices if our society was based on the common well and all the efforts were directed to accomplish that end.

For example in the case of medical triage we wouldn't need to purge our minds trying to decide who needs assistance first if there was enough investment in having the necessary health care capacity, and that could be extended to all areas where utilitarian choices are supposed to be the only alternative.

It's like putting a tight shoe on our feet and then wondering which finger we must cut. We must first choose a wide shoe, osit.

Agree in principle. In these examples however, we are not starting with a fresh slate where we have had the opportunity to build up an entire system from ground-up. The medical triage and other such real life examples (survival related scenarios) are very practical - people do have to face such situations and make tough choices which could come into conflict with our sense of morality or fairness. People trained to respond to such scenarios are given a set of rules to help make quick choices which would look utilitarian. If one puts oneself in the shoes of such an emergency response person, these rules may make some sense.

[quote author=Bud]
I don't think anyone even needs to pre-think (in a deductive manner) other options in order to make the "right" choice. I think there is always a universe of possibilities at every moment and just because I can't wrap my head around them doesn't mean they don't exist.
[/quote]

There are many possibilities that cannot be thought of in advance in a real life scenario. Still going through the mental exercise of considering some possibilities, choices and their consequences is part of mental preparedness. Being mentally prepared is likely to help one stay calm and operate from a socially connected state (myelinated vagal system) rather than fall prey to overwhelming anxiety and operate from a fight-or-flight or freeze state if one came face to face with a real life emergency survival based situation. It is just the way our bodies work.

My 2cents

 

[ana]

I just think that needing to base our decisions on utilitarian choices is just a secondary cause of the system itself limited due to pathological infestation.

Someway our minds have been infested to believe that living in shortage and limitation is part of our natural state. It is not, we wouldn't need to make utilitarian choices if our society was based on the common well and all the efforts were directed to accomplish that end.

For example in the case of medical triage we wouldn't need to purge our minds trying to decide who needs assistance first if there was enough investment in having the necessary health care capacity, and that could be extended to all areas where utilitarian choices are supposed to be the only alternative.

It's like putting a tight shoe on our feet and then wondering which finger we must cut. We must first choose a wide shoe, osit.

Agree in principle. In these examples however, we are not starting with a fresh slate where we have had the opportunity to build up an entire system from ground-up. The medical triage and other such real life examples (survival related scenarios) are very practical - people do have to face such situations and make tough choices which could come into conflict with our sense of morality or fairness. People trained to respond to such scenarios are given a set of rules to help make quick choices which would look utilitarian. If one puts oneself in the shoes of such an emergency response person, these rules may make some sense.

I understand, it was and intent on my part to look for the general cause which forces us to make use of utilitarism since I think it is necessary not to forget how is it that we are where we are.

 

[Oxajil]

I just think that needing to base our decisions on utilitarian choices is just a secondary cause of the system itself limited due to pathological infestation.

Someway our minds have been infested to believe that living in shortage and limitation is part of our natural state. It is not, we wouldn't need to make utilitarian choices if our society was based on the common well and all the efforts were directed to accomplish that end.

For example in the case of medical triage we wouldn't need to purge our minds trying to decide who needs assistance first if there was enough investment in having the necessary health care capacity, and that could be extended to all areas where utilitarian choices are supposed to be the only alternative.

It's like putting a tight shoe on our feet and then wondering which finger we must cut. We must first choose a wide shoe, osit.

But there is the possibility (among many) that in a society as you mentioned, there still can be some cataclysmic event which would cause many injuries and the amount of healers or doctors being present could be little, and I think it would take some time before doctors from other places could join in and help as well. So even in such a situation some type of human knowledge is needed to determine who to help first, taking into consideration which decision would be the most beneficial to everyone involved. It's a difficult thing. I guess in the end what matters the most is that people should do all they can to help.

Even though the investment in health care capacity can be really good, it doesn't mean it is a solid protection to all kinds of unexpected events, the damage can be more than expected etc. but I do agree that it is of course much better than the way people are being helped and protected nowadays.

 

[ana]

But there is the possibility (among many) that in a society as you mentioned, there still can be some cataclysmic event which would cause many injuries and the amount of healers or doctors being present could be little, and I think it would take some time before doctors from other places could join in and help as well. So even in such a situation some type of human knowledge is needed to determine who to help first, taking into consideration which decision would be the most beneficial to everyone involved. It's a difficult thing. I guess in the end what matters the most is that people should do all they can to help.

Even though the investment in health care capacity can be really good, it doesn't mean it is a solid protection to all kinds of unexpected events, the damage can be more than expected etc. but I do agree that it is of course much better than the way people are being helped and protected nowadays.

Well, if we take into account that cosmic or other catastrophes mirror the human experience then maybe it is reasonable to think that catastrophes are brought due to the same human state, and if this is the case, a society who is living with real knowledge and a specific orientation may not suffer the physical consequences of its own decline...?

On the other hand this is how things are right now, and I agree with you that we need to make use of all the methods available to help each other as best as we can, with the tools we have at our disposal, but I think it is important not to forget how did we get here and hopefully learn the lesson, so it all doesn't end as accidental events in which we do not participate, otherwise it seems history repeats itself again and again.

 

[cubbex]

Agree in principle. In these examples however, we are not starting with a fresh slate where we have had the opportunity to build up an entire system from ground-up. The medical triage and other such real life examples (survival related scenarios) are very practical - people do have to face such situations and make tough choices which could come into conflict with our sense of morality or fairness. People trained to respond to such scenarios are given a set of rules to help make quick choices which would look utilitarian. If one puts oneself in the shoes of such an emergency response person, these rules may make some sense.

Yes exactly. If one is involve in such experience, what would you do? would you be the utilitarian person? or in the case of the boat, would you be the one injured that can take the decision? question that gone through my head. The problem I see with the utilitarian choices (if they are utilitarian) is that treats a person like an object.

 

[Happyville]

... How would this scenario plug into the STO / STS concept?

- Would allowing all to drown because one was afraid to face a personal moral decision - be "service to self" ?
- Would taking action that conflicts with personal morals but saves others not be "service to others" ?

 

[obyvatel]

It is difficult to pinpoint exactly what a "right action" would look like in a hypothetical situation - there are not enough details and endless "what if" questions. The way I personally approach these types of questions where I put myself in the shoes of the protagonist is to work with and reaffirm some basic principles which would form the framework to work from. Usually the details are not something that can be completely determined apriori - but the basic framework (or intent) is what one can start with and impress deeply into one's being. One could call it the ideal or aim that one aspires to.


- Placing concern for welfare of others above concern for interests of the self
- Trying to act in a way that sits well simultaneously with the head, heart and body
- Developing a deep, intimate understanding of death and remembering it as often as possible

In the life-boat example, I would act to preserve the lives of all persons involved for as long as possible. Ana provided one example of how it can be done. If the universe responds with a favorable turn of events, perhaps all can be saved. Even otherwise, I would personally not advocate or implement a "solution" which involves forcibly throwing someone overboard. It would not sit well with my heart and body or even the head. Intellectually, such an action would not sit well as it would break any semblance of unity among the group of survivors and leave each one thinking only for their own selves. Overall it would not be a decision that would favor a long-term group survival possibility anyway. If I were the dead-weight, then I would consider going overboard on my own accord to give others a better chance to survive.

 

[Oxajil]

Re: Moral pitfalls

Well, if we take into account that cosmic or other catastrophes mirror the human experience then maybe it is reasonable to think that catastrophes are brought due to the same human state, and if this is the case, a society who is living with real knowledge and a specific orientation may not suffer the physical consequences of its own decline...?

Maybe. I would think that even in times of peaceful living in a society with knowledgeable people, there still will be possibilities of catastrophes happening. Not really that much because of them mirroring the human state perhaps in this case, but maybe as cyclical natural happenings? And it really was just an example, I think there are many situations possible in which a person or more people might have to think what the first thing to do would be the best for all considered, in which the third force would play a role.

Another example would be: A mother takes some let's say healing herbs (just to be safe) and some other stuff with her while she goes into the woods with her two sons. And let's say that they decide to make a meal in the woods, of which both sons eat of, but somehow they start showing a certain severe allergic reaction and the mother notices that the amount of her healing herbs is not enough for the both of them. So what would she do? Of course one of the boys might say that the other should have it, because he himself is older and can hold it out a little longer or whatever. Or maybe she could divide the amount, but would that still be effective? So this is just an example in which the mother has to think of the whole situation, in a pretty short amount of time, in order to make the right decision to be able to bring both boys home and safe, and treat them there further.

And you know, one can say that it was the mother's fault for not bringing enough healing herbs, but we're human really, and I think that not everything will go smoothly and perfect all the time, even if we do know better, we can make mistakes. I would think that even in such a society, there can be many everyday challenges for every human being. If everything would go smooth, then there would be little space for lessons to be learned, I think. Perhaps there would be different kind of lessons in such a society, but I think there still will be things to learn from... Just my thoughts here!

On the other hand this is how things are right now, and I agree with you that we need to make use of all the methods available to help each other as best as we can, with the tools we have at our disposal, but I think it is important not to forget how did we get here and hopefully learn the lesson, so it all doesn't end as accidental events in which we do not participate, otherwise it seems history repeats itself again and again.

Yes, I agree!

 

[Buddy]

I just think that needing to base our decisions on utilitarian choices is just a secondary cause of the system itself limited due to pathological infestation.

Someway our minds have been infested to believe that living in shortage and limitation is part of our natural state. It is not, we wouldn't need to make utilitarian choices if our society was based on the common well and all the efforts were directed to accomplish that end.

For example in the case of medical triage we wouldn't need to purge our minds trying to decide who needs assistance first if there was enough investment in having the necessary health care capacity, and that could be extended to all areas where utilitarian choices are supposed to be the only alternative.

It's like putting a tight shoe on our feet and then wondering which finger we must cut. We must first choose a wide shoe, osit.

I so like how you see the issue. I think that, from another perspective, that quote also points out how "moral choices in the face of some emergency" is being thought about in a quite different state of being than the state that one would be in, were one of those situations real.

My understanding, which I get from military, police and factory-related first responder CPR and haz-mat training, is that when an emergency situation happens and the limbic system is active, the usual mode of the slower thinking center is gone - perhaps suppressed or inhibited along with all the pre-screened plans for "what I would do in that situation". That fact is probably the main reason why we had to practice so many of the drills in the first place - to have some response patterns present in our physiological makeup in order to increase the probabilities of a useful response that would maximize the odds of survival. In the absence of any physical training, the idea is to simply "pay attention to all your senses, all the way around you, "know" what and where any threats are and "weigh" how imminent is a particular threat likely to be.

Regarding the "morality" aspect of the scenarios, I think it may be worthwhile to consider that when the organism is in emergency mode, the general cognition is mostly of the raw sensory input, in the moment, from multiple sources and little else is relevant (depending on the intensity of the response). It would seem that "morality" will become whatever actions aid survival for whoever's survival is being threatened.

I think you're still on target with this:

What I am trying to convey is that I think human morality or conscience is to be found in the motivation for seeking solutions/options/possibilities for the common good and not in the forced choice of a moral pitfall.

...especially since you seem to be aware of more than just the linguistic links between motive, motivation, e-motion and its empathy relation.

If I've messed up somewhere, please let me know. :)