This can serve an important function in keeping groups united and coordinated. — Judaka

Yes, that's what I meant by "greasing the skids."

Morality exists in situations where we require others to act in a specific way in order to get what we want.

Another reason why morality isn't just "right and wrong" is that morality is rules for the group, for the benefit of the group, but only your group. Morality can facilitate cruelty and tyranny in this way. — Judaka

I have no problem with that, but I think many people here would disagree with you when you claim issues that don't involve right and wrong, good and bad, are moral. In the OP, I argued that what most call morality I call just another case of social control. I think that's similar to what you're saying.

It seems to me that you're advocating for the superiority of this "intrinsic" morality as a replacement for the "coercive" morality, and I can't agree with that. — Judaka

Again, the prescription for personal morality I've described is just that - personal, i.e. guidance for how I should behave toward others. It wasn't meant apply to how groups go about enforcing rules for human interaction. Call those rules "moral" or not, I see them as just another form of social control.

Still, to disavow this process is kind of like refusing to vote in a democracy. — Judaka

Here, I'll stretch your metaphor to the breaking point - if I don't recognize the legitimacy of democracy, why would I participate voluntarily?

It's important to recognise that for many such acts, even 1% of the group is more than sufficient to be disruptive and adversely affect the rest. While it can seem almost like bullying for the majority to push these outliners back into line, it is in fact necessary to do. To "live and let live" and only be guided by your own moral principles is unacceptable. There are times where one must stand up for the conditions that benefit the group. — Judaka

When I say "social control" I don't mean it as necessarily a bad thing. I recognize the necessity for society to organize itself, I just don't think it's accurate to call that "morality.'

You sort of do, given that this is a philosophy forum and all: — Leontiskos

No, I have some obligation to respond to your arguments civilly. Which I have done. That's it. I'm not responsible for convincing you, although I have tried at least to explain my ideas to you clearly.

Because this is a philosophy forum, not your private diary...You wrote a whole thread on your ideas, and a philosophy forum is by definition a place where people engage the ideas you present. — Leontiskos

And I have engaged with all my respondents, including you, as thoroughly as I could. I've tried to be clear and respectful of others ideas. You just happen to disagree with what I've written. That often happens in philosophy discussions.

I think you and I have reached the end of our discussion.

What you are proposing is not normative in any way, and therefore it has nothing to do with morality. "Do whatever feels right to you," offers no real measure for others or for oneself to understand better or worse courses of action. How could this be called morality? — Leontiskos

My ideas on motivations for my behavior have nothing to do with anyone else. As I've tried to make clear, and which you seem to have ignored, I have not claimed any amnesty from facing the consequences of my own actions. As for my own understanding, I don't need to satisfy you. Or Banno.

Many inauthentic texts are useful. — I like sushi

When they say it's inauthentic, they just mean they don't think it was written by Chuang Tzu himself. Even so, it was roughly contemporaneous and I find it completely consistent with what Lao Tzu wrote. Again - strongly recommended.

To me "intrinsic virtuosities." is problematic, if not suspect. — Vera Mont

To be blunt, why should I worry about your problems with and suspicions about my ideas. I'm not asking you to endorse them or change your own understanding of morality.

How do you tell intrinsic from extrinsic? How does your heart sort out the sentiments you've learned and internalized from the ones you extrapolated from all the stuff you've experienced, learned and internalized? How do you trace the origin of all your ideas, ideals, convictions and beliefs? How do you decide which is a virtuosity, which is a conceit and which is a delusion? — Vera Mont

First off, I haven't discussed the source of intrinsic virtuosities. I don't say that they are all inborn and are unaffected by things I have experienced. I usually fall back on general statements about humans as social animals who like each other and want to be around each other.

As for how I recognize my own intrinsic virtuosity - self-awareness. Before I became interested in Taoism I was very self-aware of my own motivations. That's not the same as saying I wasn't also subject to social convention, e.g. fear, pride, shame, etc. Recognition is much easier than overcoming. As I said to another poster earlier in this thread, if you doubt that explanation, there really isn't much else for us to discuss. I've always said that everything Lao Tzu wrote can be boiled down to one declaration - pay attention.

The quote didn't answer my question. — Philosophim

I think it does, although you might not like the answer.

The problem is you're likely a good person already, so have no qualms with believing in yourself. — Philosophim

You seem to be assuming I am not self-aware enough to recognize my own motivations. I'm certainly not perfect - I'm still subject to fear, shame, anxiety, pride - but on questions of how I treat others, I think I see clearly. You can doubt that, but that sort of ends the discussion.

I'm talking about people who aren't good people. — Philosophim

I have been explicit that I am describing my personal philosophy. If a bad person takes up Chuang Tzu as justification, we'll have to ask them about it.

The best analysis is synthesis, or the embedding of the construct of interest into a theory
~Mario Bunge, "Energy: Between Physics and Metaphysics" — Pantagruel

After your recommendation, I downloaded this book, but I haven't read much of it yet. I started in on the essay you listed, but I got a bit lost. I'll go back and work on it some more. I also downloaded "Causality and Modern Science," which I am currently reading. As I noted, causality is a subject that I've thought and written about a lot. I'm enjoying it so far - clear and well written, or at least well-translated.

I have not stated or implied any "moral judgment against" you or anyone in the current discussion. I've only taken issue with your concepts and conception of moral philosophy for being uselessly vague and arbitrary. — 180 Proof

I think you've misunderstood my point. I know you weren't judging me for the positions I was describing. When I wrote:

I don't see how it is an excuse when I don't recognize the legitimacy of your moral judgment against me. Or, looking at it a different way, nothing I have written immunizes me from having to face the consequences of my actions, no matter what their motivation. — T Clark

I was talking about how you might judge my behavior in a situation where you thought I was doing wrong.

Strictly speaking this is only true beyond a certain point in juvenile development. We require nurturing. — I like sushi

It's hard to say if I agree with that. The texts I've read are all aimed at mature adults.

I do find a lot of eastern mysticism has a habit of being interpreted as things happening in a Void of sorts. — I like sushi

I'm not sure what you mean.

btw how does Chuang Tzu differ from Lao Tzu? I've only read the latter extensively. — I like sushi

I've been reading and rereading Lao Tzu for a long time, but only recently got around to Chuang Tzu. It was really eye-opening. It really helped clarify my understanding of what Lao Tzu wrote. I felt right at home. Strong recommendation if you're interested.

People say that only what are called the "inner chapters," the first seven chapters, are authentic, but I found the rest of them very helpful too.

Judgment is necessary. But is punishment? — Vera Mont

A good question.

The pendulum swings between two poles: understanding and judgment (I got this from cabbalism, ha!) If I fall deeply toward understanding, then I eventually lose the ability to judge. I see it all. I understand why the Nazis did that, and how Stalin never meant to become what he was, and so on. I see all the biology and culture and twists of fate that produce the villain. I can't punish, because the only difference between him and me is that fate was kinder in my case. — frank

When I first read that, I thought it said "cannibalism."

As for Nazi's and Communists, I would ask what course makes for the most effective response to their behaviors? Understanding is clearly required.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” — Sun Tzu, The Art of War

As for judgment, if I call my enemy "evil," "monster," "inhuman," what value does that provide? As far as I can see, and I see it everywhere in the world, all it does is distract from the most effective response.

I think it starts around age 10. — Vera Mont

I think I would say it starts much later than that, perhaps in middle age, long after they have "worked out an ethical system for themselves" and have become dissatisfied. In reality, it could probably start any time, but for many of us, age provides us with freedom for contemplation.

Not necessarily. Yes, if they were indoctrinated in a strict religious dogma. It's a very hard struggle for them. But children who have been gradually given more autonomy, and opportunities to exercise good judgment, sportsmanship, altruism, deferred gratification, disciplined pursuit of goals, etc. can make the transition to reliable self-governance without too many ructions. — Vera Mont

In my understanding, and I think Chuang Tzu's and Lao Tzu's, any socially influenced "reliable self-governance," no matter how benign, will result in us losing sight of our intrinsic virtuosities. Whenever we act to gain a benefit - love, approval, success - or avoid a negative consequence - guilt, shame, punishment - we lose our way.

So have other philosophers, sages, shamans and prophets. — Vera Mont

I read other philosophers not in order to be shown what to think, but rather to get their help becoming aware of and putting into words things I am already capable of seeing. I use Chuang Tzu's, Lao Tzu's, and Emerson's words because they describe, maybe better than I can, things I can see are true.

I don't see the point you're making with this reference except that Emerson seems to "morally" excuse e.g. antisocial psychopathy ... almost as Heideggerian / Sartrean (romantic) "authenticity". — 180 Proof

Sorry, I overlooked this response previously.

I don't see how it is an excuse when I don't recognize the legitimacy of your moral judgment against me. Or, looking at it a different way, nothing I have written immunizes me from having to face the consequences of my actions, no matter what their motivation.

You've said that "my actions will be in accordance with the guidance of my intrinsic nature, my heart if you will," and the ambiguity comes with the terms "intrinsic nature" or "heart." Insofar as those central terms remain opaque, so too does your morality. — Leontiskos

Opaque to you, perhaps, but not to me.

Okay, but does Chinese philosophy in general say that the "intrinsic nature" of one person will tend to align with the "intrinsic nature" of another person, and with the order of the societal whole? Your angle here still seems much more individualistic than the Chinese philosophy that I am familiar with. — Leontiskos

Speaking for myself and not for Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, or anyone else, I think my intrinsic nature has a lot in common with other people's. Again, we're social animals; we like each other; we want to be around each other. But there is no requirement that this be so. And I've tried to make it clear that Taoism rejects consideration of "the order of the societal whole" as a proper guide to behavior.

You follow your nature. Your nature changes when you learn how much pain others are in and how much they're just like you. It's the nature of a child vs the nature of the seasoned, right? — frank

I'd like to think that behaving in accordance with the golden rule will arise automatically when we all live in accordance with our inner natures. I'm not sure that's true. I'm not even sure that behaving in accordance with the golden rule will arise automatically when I live in accordance with my inner nature.

But to finally act requires judgment, an end to discussion. — frank

But what does acting require judgment of? Not necessarily right and wrong, good and bad, or moral and immoral. We just need to figure out how to address the conflict in question. Assigning blame does not make that kind of action more effective.

So the mother appeals to the social aspect of the child - that part of his personality which craves affection, validation and approval. Later in life, he will be good for his playmates and gain acceptance; be good for the teachers and avoid punishment, learn, grow up successfully in his world and be good for an employer so that he earns a living, be good for a female counterpart and win a mate, be good for his community and be accorded respect. — Vera Mont

In general I think your description of the socialization process is a good one. For me that raises the question of when the principles of self-governance I've described are applied. The person who has gone through this process is more or less out of touch with what I have called their intrinsic virtuosities. As I understand it, Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu were writing for that person to show an alternative way of living, a way out of the bind caused by social expectations.

And if your intrinsic nature is a serial killer? — Philosophim

Several others on this thread have made similar comments. I've responded with this quote from "Self-Reliance."

I remember an answer which when quite young I was prompted to make to a valued adviser, who was wont to importune me with the dear old doctrines of the church. On my saying, What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within? my friend suggested,--"But these impulses may be from below, not from above." I replied, "They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil." No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it. — Emerson - Self-Reliance

the problem is that the person who makes this argument seldom has any idea of what they mean by morality. — Leontiskos

I don't think I've been unclear about what I mean by "morality."

This is presumably as true for the Chinese philosophers you are citing as it is for Aristotle. I would submit that those Chinese philosophers did not make the strong distinction that you are making between individual morality and social custom or law. For someone like Confucius this opposition would be a non-starter. — Leontiskos

This is not correct. Taoism developed in response to and contradiction of Confucius's rigid formal moral principles. The quotes I have provided from Chuang Tzu and Lao Tzu, the two founding sources of Taoism, are representative of the body of their work.

Not every moral tenet is written into law - or it was, but later struck down - and not every law is concerned with the avoidance of sin (which is any act against the wishes of a deity or one's own core being. — Vera Mont

I've been saying that both law and any other form of persuasion or coercion are the same in that they are instruments of social control and have little to do with good and bad or right and wrong. That is just packaging, gift wrapping.

I am admittedly on the fringe on this issue. I happen to believe that every time one become angry and feels the need to admonish another , or to forgive them, one is failing to understand things from the other’s vantage. Our culture and justice system revolve around anger and blame. — Joshs

You raise an issue that's important to me, but which I haven't discussed in this thread. Beyond everything that's been written here, I don't think a system that "revolves around anger and blame" is the most effective way of addressing social conflicts.

I can go with that. — Joshs

I have said for a long time that ethics is unethical and morality immoral ... it is only recently that I have started to wade through the jargon to find what the accepted terminology is for outlining this better. — I like sushi

I think you and I are on similar paths. This thread is an effort to wade through the jargon.

I am more inclined towards meta ethics. Emotivism is a useful term for part of how I see things - hence placing Moral Views effectively outside of direct philosophical scope. — I like sushi

Is my position meta ethical? Is this discussion "outside of direct philosophical scope?"

I had to look up "emotivism." I seems close to what I am talking about in my posts on this thread.

My own image - metaphor - is that morality/ethics comprise the warp and weft of the social fabric, whether a society of one or of many. And I think it is pretty clear that they grow from values and evolve and are refined. Some of which common to all, and some, being developed over time, not. — tim wood

I don't disagree with this, although I have made what I think is a fundamental distinction between a society of many and a "society" of one.

Kant, on the other hand, looks for it in reason, and finding it there, finds something that can sometimes appear alien and strange. And as reason arguably pre-existing, in the sense of reason's being universal and necessary. — tim wood

As the basis of this argument I am rejecting Kant's understanding that morality is based on reason and is universal. For me, it is non-rational and personal.

Moral philsophy isn't just a means of social control, it is also a means of resisting social control.

When society attempts to impose upon us "You must do X, because X is good.", we may require some reply as to why we disagree. In these cases, we cannot refer to the Tao, because it is too esoteric for that. One requires earthly, conclusive arguments. — Tzeentch

I agree, Lao Tzu is no help in preparing a rational response to a moral disagreement. Taoist principles are more guides to personal behavior. As I've proposed earlier in this thread, I see imposition of moral views as more a case of social control than of right versus wrong.

The two seem to serve different purposes, and personally that's how I've always treated them. Moral philosophy is perhaps more of a tool or a brain exercise. For wisdom I would rather defer to the likes of Lao Tzu or Plato. — Tzeentch

I think I agree with this. I guess I question the value of the "brain exercise" you describe, but I guess that's a matter of taste.

Can you think of any moral discussion you've heard or participated in that was useful and if it was why was this? — Tom Storm

I left my response to this out. Generally, no. I don't usually find moral discussions useful or satisfying. Again, that's what lead me to starting this discussion.

I think it's probably the case that most of us just act and rarely think about morality. (But we might think about the law.) Morality is for academics and for conversations and for post-hoc justifications. — Tom Storm

I guess my dissatisfaction with this is the motive behind this attempt to undermine the idea of morality at all.

I think the intrinsic nature of many people leads them to harm others. They don't necessarily do this out of deliberate evil, it's the by-product of how they see the world. — Tom Storm

I think this is the standard response to the kind of approach to morals I am describing, and I admit it's a good one. I respond by quoting from "Self-Reliance" again as I did in an earlier post.

Willing, wanting, choosing, desiring don’t have to be thought of as volunteristic, as choosing in advance what we will. I would argue that we find ourselves choosing; we are compelled by the contextual circumstances we are thrown into to want and desire in specific directions prior to any reflection or consciousness. Self-conscious reflection occurs as a later and derivative mode of willing. This is the difference between unreflective mindful coping and abstract conceptual rationality. The latter is a derivative of the former, which is the fundamental way we engage with the world. — Joshs

I think you and I are getting wrapped up in a difference in our understanding of what "will" means. Or maybe not. What you call "compulsion by contextual circumstances" I would call acting in accordance with our intrinsic virtuosities, our nature. I would not call that "will" at all. I think it's more than a linguistic difference.

The determining factor is not an urge or a drive, driving and urging me from behind, but something standing before me, a task I am involved in, something I am charged with. This, in turn—this relation to something I am charged with—is possible only if I am "ahead" of myself. — Heidegger

I think what I mean by "will" is what Heidegger calls being ahead of myself. Not sure about that. It is possible to act without getting ahead of oneself.

That's a legal system, not a moral one. I doubt there are any societies left today in which the general population shares a belief system in which sins are perceived the same way by everyone, and the laws are made to prevent and/or rectify sins. Moral and legal are confused, sometimes deliberately. It's easy to impose rules if the populace shares the rulers' belief. — Vera Mont

As I see it, there is no fundamental difference between a legal system and a moral one.

What makes this "guidance of my intrinsic nature" moral? Suppose you are an antisocial psychopath: is acting "in accordance" with psychopathy also moral? — 180 Proof

Good point. Even if my actions according to Chuang Tzu's descriptions might be considered benign, they are not really moral, i.e. they don't deal with right and wrong. They apply as much to deciding whether to wash the dishes or clean the floor first as they do to robbing a bank.

As for antisocial psychopathy, I'll point you to the Emerson quote I just used in my previous response to fdrake.

Particularly in relationships, I've had the opportunity to be on both sides: the asshole and the wronged party. I know what the crime feels like from both sides. That's helpful for understanding the golden rule. — frank

I'm glad you brought up the golden rule. I've spent some time thinking about how it fits into my formulation. I'm not sure of the answer.

What can be concluded from Emerson and Thelema is that there's no distinction between a right life and one lived without worry. Thus successful rationalisation is the core moral principle. Forgetting the distinction between who you are and the lies you may make yourself believe.

Simply hope you are a good liar. And have others join in. — fdrake

Another quote from "Self-Reliance," one of my favorites.

I remember an answer which when quite young I was prompted to make to a valued adviser, who was wont to importune me with the dear old doctrines of the church. On my saying, What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within? my friend suggested,--"But these impulses may be from below, not from above." I replied, "They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil." No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it. — Emerson - Self-Reliance

And so we fall into self-improvement, social improvement, and global improvement, as though through our internal conflict we can outthink that nature from which we spring. Yet one does not really have to go all the way to China; in our own Christian tradition, the individual conscience also reigns supreme. If you follow that internal voice, you cannot go wrong. (But on the other hand, you might well get crucified.) — unenlightened

I think you've said it very well.

I think it is more or less about feeling your around how other apply value to certain judgements in certain contexts compared to others. It is then about unpicking the rational claims laid out or, often enough, revealing that there are none whatsoever. — I like sushi

I think the approach I have been describing is not rational at all. It's not irrational, it's non-rational. In a sense, that's the point.

Of course, this is further complicated when those espousing certain moral themes are so entrenched in them (or opposed to moral views) that they are effectively no longer doing anything I would call 'philosophical'. We can still attempt to point this out and find out where they took the wrong path and/or whether there is simply a misunderstanding in the concepts laid out. — I like sushi

The point I'm trying to make is stronger than that. I think Chuang Tzu and Emerson endorse not applying moral themes at all, entrenched or not.

The terminology in this area is just as obtuse (if not more so) as every other field of philosophical inspection. — I like sushi

Agreed.

We are born with value imbedded into our experiences. From the beauty of a desolate environment in rain to the misery of a sharp electric pain in ones spine, these experiences we live through do not require any justification to estimate their moral value, but that value exists via our very perception of them. — Ourora Aureis

I agree, although I don't want to get into an argument about exactly where our intrinsic virtuosity comes from. Well, maybe I do, but I didn't include that in my OP.

Moral philosophers make the mistake of attempting to intellectualise the concept of value, when in reality they merely create rationalisations which justify their own value judgements of certain experiences. In such a way, these intellectual creations exist purely to coerce others into joining their judgements, using the common psychological need of humans to have the approval of others.

A reaction to this would be ethical egoism, the ethical framework I follow. It declares that we ought to act according to our values, not the value judgements of others. In this way it seems similar to the idea of personal morality you hold. I think the most important part of using it as a framework is its declaration that morality concerns an individuals action and nothing else. Social contempt is nothing more than the natural inclination towards disgust. The Emerson quote works quite well with this framework. — Ourora Aureis

I agree.

However, these social forces fail when someone who does not care for such judgements of others comes along. Nietzsche might refer to the idealised version of this type of person as the Ubermensch, someone who creates their own values. It is abnormal psychology which creates this person. — Ourora Aureis

Perhaps calling it "abnormal psychology" is going to far, but I am in sympathy with this comment.

this seems very different to the idea of value presented in the 2nd quote, which seems to suggests an uncaring attitude towards "great" and "small", which seems to just be a description of the average human who has little ambition. — Ourora Aureis

I'm not sure about this. You say "the average human who has little ambition." Perhaps Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu would say "sage." Maybe that's going too far.

Moral principles are part of the roots of each civilisation. From Orthodox or Christian moral values to Taoism. All of them have some pillars that guide people on how to behave properly in society. You understand them as 'coercive rules' but I personally believe it goes deeper than that. Moral principles are part of our culture. — javi2541997

I don't necessarily disagree but... This is what Chuang Tzu has to say. This from Ziporyn's translation of Chapter 8.

What I call good is not humankindness and responsible conduct, but just being good at what is done by your own intrinsic virtuosities. Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more. — Chuang Tzu

I believe one example of my argument is the 'sacred' standard of respect for family members. In general, children owe respect to their parents, and vice versa. When this essential moral principle is broken, members of this community experience despair, existentialism, and even nihilism, among other things, because one of these moral (Christian) principles (or 'codes', if you prefer) is no longer present. — javi2541997

I'll let Lao Tzu respond. This is from Stephen Mitchell's version of Verse 18 of the Tao Te Ching.

When the great Tao is forgotten,
goodness and piety appear.
When the body's intelligence declines,
cleverness and knowledge step forth.
When there is no peace in the family,
filial piety begins.
When the country falls into chaos,
patriotism is born. — Lao Tzu

The second quote is a more accurate description of what morality is, and holds in the majority of the contexts in which the term is used. Morality is "rules for the group, imposed by the group, for the benefit of the group". Let's explore this through an example, if I want to live in a clean society, simply practising what I preach will not suffice, I need a majority of peoples within my society to follow suit. To convince others to be clean, to dissuade others from littering or destroying/defacing property and to apply pressure to my local council to pay for cleaning and repairs. All my attempts to persuade, intimidate, coerce, compel, incentivise or punish to this end are part of morality. My local area may look unkindly at those who act dirty the area, demonising these acts and those who commit them to discourage the behaviour. Attempts to justify acts or conditions that run counter to these goals may be pounced on and criticised. This should all be familiar to you as the kinds of things that happen around all moral issues. This group aspect of morality is, to me, the defining feature. — Judaka

I agree with this.

The first quote doesn't clearly delineate morality from any other personal motivation, not even greed or jealousy, which also come from our "intrinsic nature". — Judaka

Yes, good point. I was thinking about that after I posted the OP. The idea of acting in accordance with our intrinsic virtuosity can apply to everything we do - from treating people with kindness to deciding what to have for lunch. It has struck me that the proper question for philosophy is not "what is truth," but rather "what do I do now." For me, that is the question Chuang Tzu is trying to answer.

Those aren't mutually exclusive, most laws that exist for the functioning of society will have a moral element to them. — Judaka

I don't disagree, but I am trying to make a stronger statement - what we call "moral" isn't about good and bad, right and wrong, it's about greasing the social skids.

I like the way you've put this. Have you read Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu?

I think what Emerson readily expresses, "Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this", Chuang Tzu was aware of. That all of the "things" ultimately constructing our morals, are just "things" arising from the evolution of difference. They are neither pre-existent nor absolute, but the contrary, constructed and projected to move our stories and project signifiers; things made-up and believed. — ENOAH

Agreed. This is from the Tao Te Ching, along with the Chuang Tzu the other foundational document of Taoism - Gia-Fu Feng's translation of Verse 2.

Under heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness.
All can know good as good only because there is evil.

Therefore having and not having arise together.
Difficult and easy complement each other.
Long and short contrast each other:
High and low rest upon each other;
Voice and sound harmonize each other;
Front and back follow one another.

Therefore the sage goes about doing nothing, teaching no-talking.
The ten thousand things rise and fall without cease,
Creating, yet not possessing.
Working, yet not taking credit.
Work is done, then forgotten.
Therefore it lasts forever. — Tao Te Ching

As for following your heart, if there's an iota of thought, let alone reasoning, harsh as it seems to say (for one, because it seems impossible to avoid), I think you are not following the Way that Chuang tzu presumably did. That Way would be to follow your organic feelings or drives (we, in the human world of make and believe only construct feelings and drives as being ravenous and aggressive; in nature, eons of evolutionhave ensured that they work appropriately). — ENOAH

There is truth in what you say, but Chuang Tzu is very easygoing when it comes to any kind of imperative. I can imagine him responding to your comment with a shrug and "Hey, just do the best you can."

As for the constructions and projections, I think Chuang would suggest, go along for the ride without any prejudice. Do that, and to the world, you might seem dimwitted and indifferent, even reckless in your lack of concern. But in your heart, you are always doing as your body naturally responds, so you are always doing right. While in the projected world, there is no right besides what has been constructed and projected from time to time. — ENOAH

I agree with this.

Perhaps T Clark’s point is that the reliance on moral principles may keep cultures from becoming more civilized, by fostering reliance on the violence of authoritarianism, punishment and social repression. — Joshs

Although I think what you say is true, it's not exactly the point I was trying to make. I wasn't even arguing against what I called "social control." I think that's necessary in all but the smallest human groups and certainly kinder, gentler controls are better than coercion. Although that may be necessary, it's not morality. Rules against homosexuality are no more about morality than rules against reckless driving.