What is your life

The Limits of Ethics

Upon further analysis, one finds that the dilemma with religious or philosophic ethical teachings in our time results from the problems associated with the “limits of ethics”. These occur in situations of extreme conditions, where adherence to the rules of ethics would bring severe disadvantage. Where, then, is the limit to which ethical rules are valid, and beyond which they could be modified or abandoned?
The Judeo-Christian rules of ethics and those of some other religions are of absolute and unrestricted nature (in contrast to Aristotelian restraint). The command “love your neighbor as yourself”, when applied to charitable giving, would result in dividing one’s property down to the lowest denominator in the global society. Practical life hardly ever allows absolute and unrestricted implementation of such ethical rules.
There are a number of defensive considerations being commonly presented to justify the withholding of charitable aid.

1. 
   My or our needs come first. I should first give to somebody poor or deserving in my own family, in my own clan, or my own country. There still is plenty left for me to do for my own people.
   
2. 
   The requesting one is not “deserving” of any help: He/she is an alcoholic/drug abuser or not behaving well.
   
3. 
   The money I give only goes to the aid administrators or a corrupt government official.
   
4. 
   The requesting one got into this trouble by his own free will: Why does he/she not work? Why did he/she not go to school to learn more? Why did he/she get so many children? Why did he/she not stay where he/she came from? Why do they not learn to take care of their own country?
   
5. 
   Everybody has to do only his share: What have the others done to help? What should they do? Why should I do all? If everybody helps equally, I have to contribute only 50 cents.
   

The thoughts supporting the recipient’s side are:

1. 
   In dubious situations, give the recipient the benefit of the doubt.
   
2. 
   Could it have happened to you to be in this kind of trouble?
   
3. 
   What if your brother/sister or son/daughter were in this kind of trouble?
   
4. 
   At least support those aid organizations that help the innocent.
   
5. 
   At least support those aid organizations that help the afflicted people to support themselves.
   
6. 
   If you want to give your share only, think that at least 50 percent or 90 percent of the people do not give anything. Therefore, give at least twice or ten times your average share.
   
7. 
   As a general rule: It is better to have given ten times to the wrong person or too much than not to have given once to a person who really needed and deserved help or to have given too little.
   

There are other situations in individual life and in society’s conditions where exceptions to the ethical laws are expected or become necessary. Even the Catholic Church recognizes “just” wars and self-defense. However, all wars lead to the murder not only of combatants, but also of civilians, as in the bombarding of cities. Killing is commonly accepted in self-defense, and in defense of the innocent. Expropriations are commonly done in the public interest. Everybody’s daily life is filled with exceptional situations. What should one do, and under what circumstances? Where are the limits of ethical obligations?

Unfortunately, religious teaching gives surprisingly little assistance in such practical situations in the conduct of life. The great thinkers and founders of religions have largely not addressed the problem of the practical limits of ethical rules. This is the most significant shortcoming of religious guidance in life. It is also the most significant shortcoming of established moral philosophy. Only the ancient Greeks arrived at the conclusion that each virtue lies in the proper measure between two undesirable extremes. Kant’s philosophical Categorical Imperative may offer a reasonable approach.
The human mind is quite capable of judging, deciding, and moving ahead within undetermined situations. The degree of practical compromise in the field of ethics seems culturally determined. Thus, the amount of charitable giving, the degree of cheating on tax returns, and even the acceptance of street crime varies from one cultural group to another.

Mental Freedom and Responsibility, “Free Will” and “Freedom of Personality”

In the course of Creation, the animal era of life became characterized by “automation”. Now, in the human era, consciousness and the potential for self-determination and judgment establish the era of “freedom” and “responsibility”. Is there any freedom of the human mind? Is there freedom of will? More importantly, is there freedom of decision-making?
There are actually three levels of discussion regarding mental freedom:

• 
  Political and social freedom
  
• 
  Mental independence
  
• 
  Freedom of will and freedom of personality
  

Political and social freedom:

As Schiller says in one of his great dramas, only “thoughts are free”; words and actions are not. Most of us are politically or socially restrained, as, for instance, at work in an organization. In the interest of personal security or for personal benefit, we say and do what is expected of us. There are political and social conflict situations where we must decide whether we will say and do what is expected of us or whether we will say and do what we want to – or what is morally “right” to say and do – and suffer the consequences.
Mental independence:

Un-influenced thought and decision-making are predetermined by who one is and by one’s own personality. This personality is, after all, given by the sum total of one’s genetic predispositions, by one’s prior experiences in life (nature and nurture), and by own thought.
Temperament and emotions enter thought, as discussed earlier. They constitute a person’s “personality”. Most people would prefer having a somewhat different personality from the one they find themselves provided with. Many want to quit smoking, want to lose weight, or want to become tougher, stronger leaders, warmer parents, or just better human beings. They see their nature-given composition or the weaknesses in their personality as limiting their free will.
The fact is, people stop smoking after they are diagnosed with cancer, they lose weight after a heart attack, they are tougher or stronger leaders after leading their followers through a few battles, and they can sometimes become better human beings by taking care of some fellow humans who really suffer in life or by suffering themselves. Why could they not implement their behavior changes and, hence, their personality changes, in the first place, but could do so sometime later after significant experiences? Changes in personality, while possible, are very difficult to accomplish, at best, through constant focusing on role models. Consequently, the freedom of will and decision-making may find their most severe limitations in this predicament.
The plasticity (change in time under external influence) of the human brain between inherited traits, added experiences, and ongoing own thought indicates how unrealistic it is to try “to find oneself”. One may become, to a large extent, what one surrounds oneself with. Starting with an inherited predisposition, one is whom one evolves into in the course of life, partially by one’s own choice and under one’s own influence. At best, one can attempt to contemplate, in holistic thought, what goals one should have in selecting or searching one’s human environment and the forming experiences or activities of one’s life – then seek those. One aspect of environment that is of special significance to an individual is the choice of a companion in life and of the set of one’s friends or associates at work. To some degree, one can actively do something about this part of environment. One can do something about finding and keeping a good partner in life, good friends, and avoiding less desirable ones. The most effective approach to personality change lies in following a suitable role model within a supporting congregation of like-minded fellows.
Personality strength grows more favorably with opportunities for decision-making and accomplishments. Therefore, such opportunities should be looked for and used. Personality includes also the capability for restraint and temperance, which also require training.
There is one more factor to be considered: one’s own thought. As alluded to above, one’s own thought may be formed by personality and cultural habituation. As also indicated in that chapter, one’s own thought, through sequences of visualizations, enters memory and nerval interconnectivity in the brain in the same way as perceived experiences. Thought enters into value assessment of associations and, consequently, the course of future thought. In other words, one’s own thought has a strong influence on who one is and how one thinks and judges in the future. As indicated before, such closed circles of cause-and-effect between personality, thought, and personality can spiral off into extremes (from Jesus to Hitler). They can taper off into nothing, or they can be meaningful in everybody’s normal life. Such spirals are kept connected to reality through intervening perceptions. In summary, there is a mystery remaining regarding mental independence, who I am, and the consequences for how I can and do influence my own course in thought and action.
Freedom of “will”

Is every decision of ours merely a direct consequence of nature (given character) or nurture (received education), making every decision of ours theoretically predictable? Can thoughts and decisions ever truly be free? Can one ever free oneself of culturally imposed thought habits? Can one ever arrive at any personally free thought habit different from what one learned and has become used to?

Western thought and attitudes have reached considerable individual and group accomplishments in emphasizing personal responsibility and potential for freedom in personal action. Obviously, the West also sees the individual as depending on destiny and personal gifts; yet the individual is expected to do the best he or she can under the circumstances. One can only recommend an attitude toward life accepting a large degree of free will and true individuality, though their existence is not fully provable. Therefore, one must recommend the acceptance of corresponding responsibility and accept all opportunities for decision-making and actions. This attitude leads to a fuller life and corresponds more to the total understanding of Creation.
The rejection of free will would easily lead to a rejection of personal responsibility – and, consequently, due to the general weakness and laziness of man, to decay. On the other side, the provable limitation of free will, due to genetic and environmental conditions or destiny, should lead to great tolerance toward others and temperance in setting own objectives or aspirations. This is an example of simultaneously accepting two contradictory perspectives and living with the compromise between the two, in a not-closed system of thought as described in Chapter 4.
In summary, I see myself as a human being with an individual combination of gifts, experiences, environmental conditions and capabilities, opportunities, and freedom to act. I can, and shall, show initiative in defining and pursuing my course through existence.