As far as the relationship between ethics and religion (including esotericism) the two evolved together. — Jack Cummins

:chin: Why do you believe this?

For instance, the ancient Hebrews would not have survived as a "people" – viable social group – "wandering for 40 years in the wilderness" had they not (usually) observed moral prohibitions against murder, lying, theft & adultery BEFORE they had received "commandments" (and subsequent Mosaic Laws).

As a reasonable generalization, h. sapiens must have survived for at least a hundred millennia or so as a eusocial – instinctually moral – species BEFORE they had invented "religion", so why do you say "the two evolved together"? Clearly, religions much later had coopted ethical norms, no?

↪javra

One relevant book which is useful in thinking about wholeness is, 'The Wisdom of Imperfection', by Rob Reece. He links Bufdhism and its idea of enlightenment with Jung's idea of wholeness. Jung spoke of the emphasis on moral perfection within the Judaeo-Christian tradition( it would apply to Abrahamic religion in general). It led to the accumulation of a shadow, as a dark side of the repressed and suppressed aspects of human nature. This involves a tension between 'good' and 'evil', which needs to be balanced to combat the destructive aspects of human potential and power. He spoke of this in the form of nuclear warfare, but it applies to both individual psychology and humanity on group levels. — Jack Cummins

I think I can understand the argument you’re endorsing: one way to paraphrase my understanding is that one ought not strive to be perfect in the here and now if one is to cultivate virtue and moral means of accomplishing moral ends. If this is in keeping with what you’re seeking to express, then I’m in full agreement.

Yet I still find that following this general approach to applied ethics requires holding some future ideal reality in mind toward which one strives. Here’s what I take to be a worldly example of this:

In here taking for granted the premise that prostitution is immoral, there then are two general means of moving toward its obliteration.

The first, which I’ll label “puritan”, is to outlaw all prostitution with the most draconian laws possible in attempts to obliterated it in as soon a time as possible given the realities of the current world as is.

The second means, which I’ll tentatively label “non-puritan”, is to first acknowledge the myriad reasons for prostitution—to keep things simple, here only addressing willful prostitution (rather than unwilful sex slaves of one form or another): all these reasons generally pivoting on it being a means of gaining an income within a context where prostitution’s many risks and downsides (physical and mental) are to be deemed better than the alternatives of not prostituting oneself (from one’s own starvation to the starvation of one’s children or parents … to the more frivolous “its more financially profitable than any other means of making money"). Were society to be one where a) no people would pay money for sex with others, b) all genders would be rewarded with equal pay for equal work, c) people would be respected as fellow beings—and so forth—then no prostitution would occur, for no one would find reason to prostitute themselves. But society is not such currently. So, currently, some will always find prostitution preferable to its alternatives. The non-puritan who wants prostitution to not occur on grounds that it is an ethical wrong (as per the given premise), would then see it best to make prostitution legal and thereby regulate its commerce—this till the world changes into a humanitarian realm—placing prostitutes far away from kids, ensuring that prostitutes are and remain healthy (STD tests and so forth), that no prostitute gets raped by customers, and so forth. A potentially longer story made short, here the means are a gradual progression toward a world in which prostitution will no longer occur due to an eventual respect for all fellow human beings—this, by starting to respect prostitutes as fellow human beings (rather than deeming them as expendable and deplorable).

Both the puritan and the non-puritan in the scenarios presented, however, will hold the very same future ideal in mind when attempting to put their respective means in practice: that of a future world devoid of prostitution. It not that the non-puritan seeks a balance between good and evil—they in fact seek the very same evil-devoid good which the puritan desires—but the non-puritan’s outlook and reasoning is not absolutist in terms of what is possible to accomplish in the here and now.

In the here and now, for the non-puritan there is balance between extremes, yes, whereas for the puritan it’s a worldview of absolute good and absolute bad. But both—as they’ve been herein so far addressed—will nevertheless seek the same perfected state of being: The non-puritan by following a balanced approach toward this future state of perfection (with the puritan likely to deem this approach perverse in so far as it accommodates what is bad). The puritan by imposing an absolutist view of what is good and what is bad upon all others (with the non-puritan likely to deem the puritan’s approach as unrealistic, shortsighted, and blatantly mistaken in believing that the puritan’s means can ever accomplish the given and otherwise shared goal).

While I’m sure this terse appraisal via the example of prostitution can be disparaged by many, it does provide an outlook on what I myself generally endorse: a non-absolutist, balanced approach toward moving toward a better future. Yet, again, this very notion of a “better future” which was just stipulated will itself be an ideal regarding future states of being—will steadfastly remain the goal which is pursued.

(Not trying to write a thesis on this one subject here, but yes, fyi, I myself deem prostitution to be an ethical wrong which can only be realistically done away with in time via what I’ve here termed non-puritanical means. Means which I thereby take to at least attempt to hold greater compassion toward prostitutes in general as fellow human beings, hence as fellow human beings with the same needs and rights as the rest of us. Our own imperfections very much included.)

the concept of the 'middle way' is a blurry one in application to ethical dilemmas — Jack Cummins

I think of the Middle Way, even in its ethical application, as not so much a behavioural/choices path of moderation, as a 'place' or 'state' or 'perspective' which exists in the 'gap' 'between' the extremes; or where there is no thing such as extremes, because there are no opposites period; that is, differences are dissolved (whether that is a psychological, metaphysical or epistemological 'place' or concern, let the experts decide). I.e., the path to insight is neither one of overindulging the Subject nor depriving It; but rather shedding the illusion that there is a Subject to overindulge or deprive.

How this path translates into ethics is now more clear. For the sake of brevity, at least as a starting point, Ethical behavior is not driven by the desires of the illusory Subject. Or, in more conventional terms, ethical decisions are egoless.

Hey that’s pretty good. One for the scrapbook. Although shedding the illusion is often rather more traumatic than a snake shedding its skin.

shedding the illusion is often rather more traumatic than a snake shedding its skin. — Wayfarer

I can imagine. So would actually turning the other cheek. And, anyway, what really is ethics? Yet if decisions were made in the direction of these ideals, might not they be tending towards the ethical?

Yet if decisions were made in the direction of these ideals, might not they be tending towards the ethical? — ENOAH

Of course :ok:

I think it makes sense to believe that they evolved together. The question is then which came first and what is meant by each.

Personally I believe 'ethics' gave rise to 'religion'. I am using those terms rather broadly though.