Ethics discussion split from the complaints thread.

[Selective Genius]

I decided to read a epic over the last week. It is supposed to be a scripture detailing the Righteous Way (Dharma) and how to walk that path.

But I was left with more questions about Dharma than I had before reading it.

The characters whose storylines impacted me the most were the Hero and the Anti-Hero

Anti-hero: Born to an unwed princess and abandoned, set adrift in a river, with a hope that he dies. Rescued by a low caste, childless family and raised as their own. The baby grows up to be a skilled charioteer and to the anger of the high warrior caste, more skilled than them in archery despite being only 12-13 years old. Since lower caste is not allowed to bear weapons, he is accused of 'stealing'  knowledge. He was ridiculed and bullied all his childhood and finally had enough. He left the country and through several hardships, earned the knowledge he so desperately sought. He returned the greatest archer in the world and a legitimately strong warrior, perhaps one of the strongest.

Hero: Born legitimately to the same princess, he and his four brothers struggled earlier in his life. But since he was raised as a higher caste warrior, he got the favor of everyone around him. He got the best education and the favor of his teacher who taught him archery, among other weapons. He was taught by Gods just so he could be the greatest archer in the world. He did not earn any of it, he was just pushed because he was born to a higher caste and had a moderate amount of talent. He also becomes 'The greatest archer in the world'.

The Hero and Anti-hero develop a bitter rivalry over the years. In the climactic battle, these two characters are about to fight each other in a battle, not knowing that they are half brothers. Their mother approaches the Anti-hero and tells him that she is his real mother and begs him to switch sides and fight for the 'good guys', the same people who ridiculed him because of his low birth. Our enraged anti-hero refuses to switch sides, but promises his real mother that he will only kill the Hero and none of the other four brothers.

In battle, the Anti-hero defeated all the brothers except the Hero but did not kill anyone of them, despite having ample opportunities to do so. When finally, the Hero and the Anti Hero fight one on one, the Hero gets his butt kicked all over the battlefield. The Hero, the Chosen One, Dharma's warrior was losing to a 'low caste goon'. However the Hero gets a lucky chance when the Anti-Hero's chariot gets stuck in the ground and he had to put his weapons down to take the wheel out.

Attacking an unarmed person is against Dharma, but still the so called Hero had to resort to immoral ways and cheating to win the battle and kill his opponent. And the Anti-hero, who fought on the side of the villains, maintained his Dharma and did not kill anyone he promised not to kill. And yet we hail the Hero and the Anti-hero is forgotten.

Is this what happens to people who truly follow the Righteous way? This kid, who earned every bit of his strength through sheer freaking will and hard work  loses his life to a cheap shot by an entitled brat who got everything handed over to him by the Gods? Did I mention that the Hero literally had ONE OF THE TWO STRONGEST GODS on his side and STILL got kicked all over the place?

What is the point of being nice, really?

I am sorry for the rant..

[TheSaint]

7 minutes ago, Selective Genius said:

What is the point of being nice, really?

We don't do the right thing because we expect to be rewarded for it. We do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

[Selective Genius]

8 minutes ago, TheSaint said:

We don't do the right thing because we expect to be rewarded for it. We do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

So we do the right thing even though we suffer for it?

[razark]

1 minute ago, Selective Genius said:

So we do the right thing even though we suffer for it?

Yes.  Simply because it is right.

It's the entire concept of a martyr.

 

Of course, you get to decide what action you think is "right" in any given situation.

[TheSaint]

Just now, Selective Genius said:

So we do the right thing even though we suffer for it?

Yep. But also remember that suffering is not without meaning.

[Lisias]

13 minutes ago, Selective Genius said:

So we do the right thing even though we suffer for it?

I have a different view. My answer to your answer is NO.

We do the right thing. Point. End of history. We don't suffer by doing the right thing. We suffer by others don't doing the right thing.

Your choice? You can choose to be the one that stops the suffering, or the one that allows the suffering to linger, affecting everybody else.

That history about the Hero and the Anti-Hero? It's more or less like this saying, attributed to Bruce Lee :

"Expecting life to treat you well because you are a good person
is like expecting a tiger will not attack you because you are a vegetarian."

The Dharma history is telling you to do not expect fighting the good fight and be rewarded by your enemy doing the same. You fight the good fight because you need to do so, and onde you decide to fight, you don't put yourself on a situation in which your defeat can only be avoided by your adversary being like you. If your enemy was as you are, they would not be your enemy, you would be fighting with them, not against them.

So, the Anti-Hero lost his life not because they did the right thing. He lost his life because he expected that his adversary would do the right as he. But if the adversary would be the type that do the right thing, they would not be fighting each other at first place!

 

[TheSaint]

1 hour ago, Lisias said:

I have a different view. My answer to your answer is NO.

We do the right thing. Point. End of history. We don't suffer by doing the right thing. We suffer by others don't doing the right thing.

Your choice? You can choose to be the one that stops the suffering, or the one that allows the suffering to linger, affecting everybody else.

That history about the Hero and the Anti-Hero? It's more or less like this saying, attributed to Bruce Lee :

"Expecting life to treat you well because you are a good person
is like expecting a tiger will not attack you because you are a vegetarian."

The Dharma history is telling you to do not expect fighting the good fight and be rewarded by your enemy doing the same. You fight the good fight because you need to do so, and onde you decide to fight, you don't put yourself on a situation in which your defeat can only be avoided by your adversary being like you. If your enemy was as you are, they would not be your enemy, you would be fighting with them, not against them.

So, the Anti-Hero lost his life not because they did the right thing. He lost his life because he expected that his adversary would do the right as he. But if the adversary would be the type that do the right thing, they would not be fighting each other at first place!

I think the point of his question, and the responses to it, is that we do the right thing even when we know we will suffer for it. It's easy to choose to do the right thing when there is no penalty, or when we know that any repercussions will be minor or easily deflected. But one who chooses to do the right thing when the cost is enormous, he is truly righteous.

Consider Maximilian Kolbe. He offered his life in exchange for a stranger's. The only reward he received this side of the grave was two weeks of starvation and a shot of carbolic acid in his arm. He knew what the consequences of his choice would be, he chose it anyway. His suffering was not meaningless. And if you were to ask him, I don't believe that he would think he had been defeated in any way.

[Lisias]

7 minutes ago, TheSaint said:

I think the point of his question, and the responses to it, is that we do the right thing even when we know we will suffer for it. It's easy to choose to do the right thing when there is no penalty, or when we know that any repercussions will be minor or easily deflected. But one who chooses to do the right thing when the cost is enormous, he is truly righteous.

My understanding of the question was about the Hero / Anti Hero epic as related to the Dharma. The Anti Hero did everything by the book, but died anyway - and then the questioning about the point of doing the right thing. 

My point is that it's pointles to expect rewards by doing the right thing. We do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, and the suffering (or price) we pay by doing it only happens because other people choose to do nothing, or decided to be rewarded by doing whatever it's need to be so - what's not uncommon to be the bad thing.

An interesting characteristic of the truly righteous is that it's not unusual they reject being called righteous. They did it because it was needed to be done, and they were in the position of doing it. So they did, with or without the suffering. 

I think we’re converging on what we meant, besides disagreeing in how we say it? 

 

25 minutes ago, TheSaint said:

Consider Maximilian Kolbe. He offered his life in exchange for a stranger's. The only reward he received this side of the grave was two weeks of starvation and a shot of carbolic acid in his arm. He knew what the consequences of his choice would be, he chose it anyway. His suffering was not meaningless. And if you were to ask him, I don't believe that he would think he had been defeated in any way.

The suffering was irrelevant. He would do it with or without the suffering. And he didn't choose to suffer, he decided he would not allow the other guy to die, besides any suffering. Suffering that he endured because a lot of other people, by omission or directly acting in evilness, put these people in that horrible situation. 

Just imagine all that people of that terrible era doing what's right, besides a little suffering..  This was the reason for Kolbe's suffering, not his commitment to save lifes.

The meaningfulness of the suffering, or if he was defeated or victorious is out of scope of my arguing, by the way. I do nit intent to make any judgment of value on this.

[kerbiloid]

13 hours ago, Selective Genius said:

What is the point of being nice, really?

Laika (the first terrestrial being in the space) was chosen between other dawgs for her nice and cooperative nature,

And just look, how that ended for her..

***

We do right things because we consider another thing wrong.

This doesn't make right what we do.

***

About the Dharma story.
Weren't the defeated high-caste players become desecrated and thus outcasted when they first were defeated by the low-caste opponent, and then (even moar!) spared by him and accepted his misery?

Edited August 31, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Lisias]

8 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Laika (the first terrestrial being in the space) was chosen between other dawgs for her nice and cooperative nature,

And just look, how that ended for her..

Yep. But being nice and cooperative is not necessarily the Right Thing to be done.  So, we can conclude that Laika didn't did the Right Thing - as a poor dog could be expected to do such decisions. But yet… Yes, it's a very nice example.

 

8 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

We do right things because we consider another thing wrong.

This doesn't make right what we do.

Couldn't said better. We endure the consequences from what we do, no matter being right or wrong.

[Vanamonde]

The ethics discussion is interesting, but is off-topic here. Please take it to its own thread. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

The ethics discussion is interesting, but is off-topic here. Please take it to its own thread. 

"discuss negative things in a very general way"

[Vanamonde]

42 minutes ago, Aperture Science said:

"discuss negative things in a very general way"

You are welcome to have this discussion. Just not in the complaints thread. These posts have been moved to their own thread. 

[BonnieNew]

Your thoughts are rather interesting and even necessary for almost every person. But if the negative thoughts prevail, it is necessary to make sure in the others

Edited September 11, 2019 by BonnieNew

[BonnieNew]

On 9/2/2019 at 12:25 AM, Vanamonde said:

You are welcome to have this discussion. Just not in the complaints thread. These posts have been moved to their own thread. 

Indeed, there are so many complaints in the article, that it is not too easy to find out the necessary information.