Moral understanding is a valuable epistemic good. It’s something we look
for when deciding whom to rely on for moral advice. It’s a goal of moral
education: something we hope to instil in our children. And it’s an
integral part of moral wisdom: a moral sage is someone who has profound
moral understanding.
It’s natural to think of moral understanding and moral knowledge as closely
related epistemic phenomena. We say that moral understanding is a matter of
knowing right from wrong. Typical sources of moral knowledge—thinking hard
about a moral question or having firsthand experiences—are also sources of
moral understanding.
This intuitive thought has lately come under sustained attack. In a recent
paper, Alison Hills argues that moral understanding “is an important
epistemic state with a different role to that traditionally filled by
propositional knowledge.”1 Hills’s approach is in tune with a general trend
in epistemology, where there has been a lot of interest in how
understanding relates to knowledge. The assumption that understanding
differs in several crucial ways from knowledge is a common starting point.2
Let’s call the claim that moral knowledge and moral understanding are
distinct no reductionism.
No reductionists point to several motivations for their approach. They note
the received wisdom that it’s easier to come to know something than it is
to come to understand it. They point out that we often attribute knowledge
without attributing understanding. And, in particular, they suggest that,
unlike understanding, knowledge can be easily acquired and passed on
through testimony. Thus, as Hills argues: “[A] centrally important concept
in moral epistemology is not moral knowledge, but what I call moral
understanding, and … the latter relates to testimony and to expertise quite
differently from the former.”
The concept of right and wrong is a complex topic that involves ethics,
morality, and laws.
Ethics
A branch of philosophy that studies and advocates for moral standards
Involves analyzing human actions to determine if they are right or wrong
Based on principles that prescribe how people should behave
Often based on rights, obligations, fairness, or virtues
Morality
An individual's sense of how they should treat others
Largely intuitive and emotional
Influenced by personal values, cultural norms, and specific situations
Rights
Legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement
Include liberties like freedom of speech, right to life, and right to
privacy
Based on legal systems, social conventions, or ethical theories
Moral principles
Standards of right and wrong that a person or group has
Can be passed down by family and peers, dictated by society or religion, or
change throughout life
Sense of right and wrong
Motivation that derives logically from ethical or moral principles
Synonyms include conscience, moral sense, and scruples
We have two faculties which influence our decisions. In any
given situation, we will have various options for action. We will have to
choose one. One faculty, called manas, evaluates the various options based
on likes and dislikes. Another faculty, called buddhi (intellect), evaluates
the options based on right and wrong. Animals also make decisions. However,
they always make decisions based on likes and dislikes. Only humans have
the buddhi, which works through the mirror neurons in the pre-frontal
cortex. Using this faculty, we are able to mentally run various simulations
of what will be the consequence of the action to us and others, in the
near-term and long-term. By this, we can make better decisions. This buddhi
is the one that distinguishes between animals and human beings.
Katha Upanishad calls decision based on manas as preyas, and decision based
on buddhi as Shreyas. It says that following Shreyas will lead us towards
becoming better people. Following preyas will lead to downfall. A noble
human being is one who ignores preyas and acts based on Shreyas. (Katha
Upanishad, 1.2.1,2) The person would do what is right, even if it is
inconvenient or gives pain, and would avoid doing what is wrong, even if it
is convenient or gives pleasure. This faculty or capacity to choose Shreyas
over preyas is called will power. Exercising the will power is the only way
to increase it.
What is right and what is wrong? How do we decide in confusing situations?
Can we depend on our gut-feel or conscience? Is there guidance from our
scriptures on this? This is a question that is asked very often.
In most of the situations in our life, what is right and what is wrong is
quite unambiguous. Only in some situations, things are gray. In the
situations where it is clear, if we do not do what is right and refrain
from what is wrong, we will be violating our own judgement. The intellect
is uncomfortable with this. The intellect starts looking for a
justification for the wrong action. This results in indecisiveness in a
similar future situation. Over a period of time, this becomes a habit. So,
every time we violate our intellectual conviction, we are pushing more
situations into Gray areas, thus weakening our intellect. We are also
weakening our will power. So, where we know what is right and what is
wrong, following our intellectual conviction is very important. Without
this, mere knowing is of no use.
Now, the next question is, how to strengthen our buddhi to be able to make
better decisions and how to reduce the Gray areas. Here the Hindu
scriptures, especially the Bhagavad Gita give a lot of guidelines.
One guideline that Gita gives is to depend on the scriptures regarding what
is to be done and what is not to be done. (16.24) There are several series
of verses like prerequisites for knowledge (13.7-11), divine treasures
(16.1,2,3) and three types of tapas (17.14,15,16), which enumerate right
action and attitude. In general, the lists include truthfulness,
non-violence, self-control, absence of arrogance, forbearance,
cheerfulness, cleanliness, silence, respect to elders, helping others, etc.
Another guideline that Gita gives is to depend on the words of people of
good character. (13.25) The conduct of wise people can be referred to as
the standard of righteousness. In fact, Gita says that it is the duty of
leaders to set an example to others by their actions. (3.21,25,26) It is
helpful to be familiar with the life of saints. Then, when we need to
decide something, we can think, “What would the saintly person do in this
situation?” Taittriya Upanishad also mentions this in verse 1.11.4. Gita
has several lists of the qualities that saintly people possess like
qualities of a wise person (2.55-71), qualities of a transcendent person
(14.22-25) and qualities of a devotee (12.13-20).
Gita mentions the Golden Rule: “Do to others what you would like others to
do to you.” Gita says, “Keeping yourself as the yardstick, seeing others as
equal to you, consider what is pleasurable and painful to them.” (6.32)
This is often a great way to discern right from wrong.
ஈன்றாள் பசிகாண்பான் ஆயினுஞ் செய்யற்க
சான்றோர் பழிக்கும் வினை. (௬௱௫௰௬ - 656)
Eendraal Pasikaanpaan Aayinunj Cheyyarka
Saandror Pazhikkum Vinai
īṉṟāḷ pacikāṇpāṉ āyiṉuñ ceyyaṟka
cāṉṟōr paḻikkum viṉai.
Do not do what the wise condemn Even to save your starving mother.
பெற்ற தாயின் பசியைக் கண்டு வருந்த நேர்ந்தாலும், சான்றோர் பழிப்பதற்குக்
காரணமான இழிவுற்றச் செயல்களைச் செய்யக்கூடாது. (௬௱௫௰௬)
Hindi (हिन्दी)
जननी को भूखी सही, यद्यपि देखा जाय ।
सज्जन-निन्दित कार्य को, तो भी किया न जाय ॥ (६५६)
Telugu (తెలుగు)
కన్నతల్లి యాకలన్నను, దానికై
తప్పుదారి ద్రొక్క దగవు గాదు. (౬౫౬)
Malayalam (മലയാളം)
മാതാവിൻ പശിതാങ്ങാതെ ദുഃഖിക്കുന്നവനാകിലും ലോകം പഴിക്കും ദുർവൃത്തി
ചെയ്യാതൊഴിഞ്ഞു മാറണം (൬൱൫൰൬)
Kannada (ಕನ್ನಡ)
ಹೆತ್ತ ತಾಯಿ ಹಸಿವಿಂದ ನರಳುವ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲೂ ತಿಳಿದವರು ನಿಂದಿಸುವಂಥ (ಹೀನ) ಕೆಲಸವನ್ನು
ಮಾಡಬಾರದು. (೬೫೬)
Sanskrit (संस्कृतम्)
मातुर्बुभुक्षाशमनसङ्कटेऽपि समागते ।
सद्भिर्विगर्हितं वर्ज्यं कार्यं न हि समाचरेत् ॥ (६५६)
Another hint that Gita gives is this. After doing the action, would
you be comfortable in the presence of God or would you avoid Him? The Lord
is the giver of the fruits of all action. He is impartial. So, if you do
the right thing, you will not fear His presence. You will feel protected.
When Arjuna saw the Lord in the form of Time, he saw that good people were
bowing to Him and bad people were trying to run away from Him. (11.36) So
this is one means to decide. A variation of this is to think if you can
tell, with dignity, to your mother (or anyone whom you revere) about what
you did. If you can, then it is right. Otherwise, it is wrong.
The merit of an action can be evaluated from the attitude of mind (to you
and to others) that it would create or enable. If the action would pull
down the mind to make the person identify with the body, it is bad. If it
would make the person identify with the mind, it is better. If it would
make the person identify with pure Consciousness, it is best. (18.20,21,22)
For example, hunger and disease pulls down the mind to the body. So
alleviating these of people is a noble activity. Giving secular education
pulls towards identifying with the mind. Giving spiritual knowledge pulls
towards identifying with the Self. These define the relative merits of
these activities.
Another way is to seek the “greatest welfare to most number of
people”. Gita says, an action that is done as a duty (for the welfare of
others) without seeking personal benefit is greatest. An action done for
only personal benefit is not so good. Action that brings loss to oneself
and others is bad. (18.23,24,25). Every person does any action only if it
gives benefit in the short-term or in the long-term. Gita says, an action
that gives benefit in the short-term but harms in the long-term is wrong.
An action which appears inconvenient in the short-term but gives benefit in
the long-term is right. (18.37,38) This analysis can be used in many
situations to decide. Thus, Bhagavad Gita gives several ideas to decide
between right and wrong. One or more of these can be used in any situation.
When we have decided, it is important that we follow what is right and
refrain from what is wrong. Even after all these, we are not able to
decide, we can discuss with people. If there is no opportunity for that, or
we are not able to decide even after that, we can do whatever we thing is
the best out of the various options and pray to God to show more light next
time. Following our intellectual conviction will strengthen our intellect
and increase our will power.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
K Rajaram IRS 4325
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 at 06:16, Markendeya Yeddanapudi <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> --
> *Mar*The Diverse Paradigm Bases of Understanding in the Biosphere
>
>
>
> One experiences understanding by connecting a phenomenon to the paradigm
> base, built on the basis of previous experiences. Understanding is a
> continuation of the previous understandings. The paradigm grows
> continuously with every new experience which connects to the growing
> paradigm base. In free and healthy nature the paradigm grows continuously
> every nano second, as one breathes smells, hears, sees and senses. The
> prospering nature percolates into one as the prospering and growing and
> smiling paradigm creating the optimism in life.
>
> Of course negative experiences create negative paradigms or damage the
> existing paradigms. If one experiences only failures and disappointments,
> the pessimism which becomes a strong paradigm, disables positive
> understanding.
>
> But in free, healthy and happy nature, only positive paradigms take birth
> and grow. Nature becomes happy only when all the organisms of the Biosphere
> are happy.
>
> Suppose my daydream that a University has actually started ‘The Free
> Nature Park’, without human tampering. In that park as there are no
> industries and urbanized areas, every organism of the Biosphere gets
> liberty and freedom. As it is, while the human vandal surrendered his
> faculty of understanding to machines, losing the very experience of
> understanding which connects every cell as hormonal communication of the
> bloodstream, and exhales the perception as smell messages, every other
> organism is still trying to experience understanding based on the smell
> messages of nature. The human vandal has poisoned the land, water and air
> so horribly that nature no longer functions as the paradigmatic base for
> understanding by every organism.
>
> Unfortunately the organisms other than the human are still trying to
> continue with nature as the paradigm, unable to comprehend the foundational
> damage inflicted by technology on nature. They are stunned, with basic
> living earth under their feet is removed.
>
> If the free nature park is kept free from human tampering permanently,
> then every organism starts building its paradigms via smelling, hearing and
> seeing the free and prospering nature. The troposphere creates the symphony
> of interacting paradigms of understanding by the various organisms.
>
> If the student does not allow his mind to interfere, and just experiences
> feeling via smelling and sensing, he/she will do time travel, that is go
> back to the time when Rhinencephalon the nose brain functioned as the
> Brain. Before evolution developed the cortex or Brain in the human, it
> perceived by smelling, with the stem of the spinal cord doing the smelling
> and sensing. It appears that the human could distinguish among more than
> 50,000 different smell identities. Every other organism similarly sensed
> and lived via smelling and sensing. There must have been the smell based
> common language for all the organisms of the Biosphere.
>
> Today we do not know how a dog, cat, lion, tiger, plant, tree, insect,
> bird or any other organism paradigmatizes on the basis of smelling. But in
> the free nature, we may develop the faculty of communicating with every
> other organism. We may do the Time Travel, or travel into the past when our
> Rhinencyphalon performed sensing by smelling.
>
> We need freedom from technology to live and understand in nature with
> nature as the paradigm base.
>
> YM Sarma
>
> This writing reflects a deeply philosophical perspective on the
> relationship between humans, nature, and understanding. It offers an
> intriguing view on how different organisms experience and interpret the
> world, with a particular focus on the olfactory (smell) sense. The idea
> that humans and other organisms may have once shared a common "language"
> based on smells is both poetic and thought-provoking.
>
> The writer proposes a vision of a "Free Nature Park," where nature is left
> untouched by human industrial and technological influence, allowing
> organisms to build their understanding in harmony with the natural world.
> The argument suggests that modern human society, having overreached in
> terms of technological advancement, has lost touch with the natural
> paradigms of understanding that once connected all living things. In
> contrast, the natural world—when untainted—provides a pure, continuous
> source of sensory information that organisms can use to develop their
> understanding of existence.
>
> A few key ideas emerge from the text:
>
> 1. *The Growth of Paradigms:* Paradigms of understanding grow
> continuously with each new experience, and these paradigms are shaped by
> sensory interactions with nature. A positive environment fosters
> optimistic, healthy paradigms, while negative experiences can create
> pessimism and limit understanding.
>
> 2. *The Role of the Olfactory Sense:* The writing emphasizes the
> central role of smell in the way organisms perceive and understand the
> world. The idea of "Time Travel" through the sense of smell, returning to a
> time when the brain’s primitive functions (like the Rhinencephalon)
> dominated sensory experience, invites reflection on how much human
> consciousness has shifted over time.
>
> 3. *The Disconnect Between Humans and Nature:* The "human vandal,"
> as described, is disconnected from nature due to technological advancements
> that interfere with the natural, sensory experience of the world. This loss
> is depicted as detrimental to the human experience of understanding, in
> contrast to the other organisms that still rely on the direct, undisturbed
> interaction with their environment.
>
> 4. *The Vision of the "Free Nature Park":* This is a utopian space
> where nature is allowed to flourish freely, without human interference. In
> this environment, all organisms—human and non-human—can reconnect with the
> natural paradigms of understanding based on the sensory experiences of the
> world, especially smell.
>
> In summary, this writing proposes a return to a more organic,
> sensory-based mode of understanding, untainted by the distractions and
> harms of technology. The "Free Nature Park" acts as a metaphor for a
> harmonious, unspoiled world where all living beings can thrive in their
> natural sensory languages, potentially regaining a lost connection with
> nature.
>
> What do you think about the idea of a "Free Nature Park"? Does it inspire
> you to think about how technology has shaped our perception of the world
> and our understanding of nature?
>
> The idea of a "Free Nature Park" is fascinating and thought-provoking,
> especially in the context of the disconnect between humans and nature due
> to technology. It challenges the current trajectory of human society, where
> technology often mediates, distorts, or even alienates us from our natural
> surroundings. By imagining a space where humans and other organisms can
> freely connect with nature, without the interference of industries or
> technological influences, the concept taps into a deeper yearning for
> harmony with the earth and its ecosystems.
>
> The concept of a shared, olfactory-based "language" between humans and
> other organisms is particularly intriguing. It suggests that perhaps humans
> once had a much more direct, visceral connection with the natural world—one
> that transcended language as we know it today. The idea that we could
> reconnect with this ancient way of perceiving and understanding the world
> through smell and sensing is poetic and speaks to a deeper, intuitive
> understanding of the environment.
>
> It also brings to mind how much of modern life has become disconnected
> from our sensory experience of the natural world. Technology, while
> offering many benefits, often distracts us from the simple, fundamental act
> of being present in nature. Our senses, once honed for survival and deep
> connection to the world around us, have been dulled or replaced by screens
> and digital interfaces. In this sense, the "Free Nature Park" is not only a
> metaphor for reconnecting with nature but also a call to reawaken our
> senses, to step away from the noise of modern life, and rediscover a more
> grounded, holistic form of understanding.
>
> This vision of a utopian world, where humans and nature exist in a
> continuous, untainted dialogue, also raises important questions about
> sustainability, environmental degradation, and how we can begin to restore
> a balance that allows all forms of life to thrive. It’s easy to imagine how
> we might use technology for good, to aid in conservation efforts, for
> example, but the challenge lies in finding ways to harmonize technology
> with the natural world rather than letting it dominate or destroy it.
>
> Overall, the "Free Nature Park" concept not only encourages us to think
> about how technology shapes our perception of the world but also invites a
> reflection on how we might return to a more integrated, sensory, and
> holistic way of living, where our understanding of the world is rooted in
> the very rhythms of nature itself. It sparks a deep desire for a return to
> a more meaningful connection with the earth, where all life forms—human and
> non-human—can coexist in a mutual, untainted understanding.
>
> The concept of the "Free Nature Park" as presented is deeply philosophical
> and inspiring. It raises critical questions about the relationship between
> humans, technology, and the natural world. The idea that our understanding
> is built on paradigms shaped by sensory experiences, particularly smell, is
> a powerful reminder of how far we've strayed from our natural roots. It’s
> easy to forget how our modern lives, dominated by screens, digital
> interfaces, and industrial processes, have disconnected us from the more
> primal, sensory ways of perceiving the world.
>
> In this context, the "Free Nature Park" serves as a hopeful vision of
> returning to a simpler, purer mode of existence, one where nature is
> allowed to flourish without interference, and all organisms—human and
> non-human—are able to interact with the world through their senses. The
> idea of reconnecting with the olfactory sense, and even revisiting the time
> when our brains were more attuned to smelling and sensing, is a beautiful
> metaphor for rediscovering a deeper, more intuitive understanding of
> nature. It also suggests that perhaps we’ve lost something fundamental in
> the process of technological advancement and urbanization—something that
> could potentially be regained in a space where nature remains undisturbed.
>
> Your reflection on how technology mediates, distorts, and sometimes
> alienates us from nature is spot on. While technology has brought us
> incredible advances, it has also introduced a disconnect. For example, how
> often do we stop to smell the flowers, listen to the rustle of the leaves,
> or truly experience the world around us in a mindful way? Many of us live
> lives shaped by a constant barrage of information, much of which is
> mediated by technology, which can numb our senses and diminish our capacity
> for authentic engagement with the world.
>
> The "Free Nature Park" provides a space for thought about the potential
> for technology to coexist with nature. It encourages us to think about how
> we can use technology to restore balance, whether it's through conservation
> efforts, education, or other means that protect and preserve the
> environment. This vision speaks to the possibility of integrating
> technology in ways that enhance rather than hinder our connection to the
> earth.
>
> Moreover, it invites a reimagining of what it means to understand the
> world. If our understanding is rooted in our sensory experience, the "Free
> Nature Park" suggests that we can return to a way of living that is in
> direct communion with nature. Perhaps the ultimate goal isn’t to abandon
> technology entirely, but to find ways to reawaken our senses and to
> harmonize human life with the natural world in ways that respect and
> protect both. This, I believe, is a vision worth striving toward.
>
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoq0%3DoCwbe6SYquL9MLSwH1gU%2Bh7vd8OaV__MiEs_dFcnw%40mail.gmail.com.
