posted 19 Jul 2012, 10:25 by Akasharaja Bruton
Natural morality vs conventional morality (quotes from The Essential Sangharakshita pgs 591 – 601)
“Natural morality refers to behaviour that is directly related to mental states, while conventional moral behaviour is a matter of custom and tradition, and has no basis in psychology, not being related to a specific mental state.”
“It is quite important to be sure within oneself whether one is really leading a moral life or just respecting the prejudices of the group within which one happens to be. Moral life is essentially a matter of skilful mental states expressed in skilful behaviour and skilful speech.”
“Of course, if you want to communicate the Dharma to a lot of people, you cannot afford to alienate them by causing offence, especially by breaking their taboos. At the same time, you need to be careful not to lose sight of what you are trying to communicate. It is easy to forget that the Buddhist message is a subversive one, that its values run counter to mundane or wordly norms, and that your commitment to its ethical principles may lead you on occasion to offend conventional notions of morality.”
“A true individual is someone who has developed self-awareness, through one discipline or another, and on that basis has a confidence and self-respect that does not depend on convention or fashion. “
1. Have you ever been in a situation where you have offended conventional notions of morality for ethical or other reasons? What effect did it have on you and others in the situation?
2. Are there any areas in your life where you feel you hold back with your ethical practice through fear of challenging the group norm?
3. Sangharakshita says “Sometimes virtue and respectability coincide, but often they don’t. One may be both virtuous and respectable, but it is also possible to be very respectable and not at all virtuous, or highly virtuous and not at all respectable.” Do you think it is possible to be a true individual and be virtuous and respectable at the same time?