Same sex marriage morally acceptable? Many people do not think so. It does ‘do harm’ to the institution of marriage, cheapening it, and attacking the traditional family, which is the bedrock of Western society. Rejecting it is not the same as rejecting homosexuality, which indeed does no harm to anyone else.

Children in same sex marriages. Gross child abuse, capable of doing immense damage to children.

Escalating gap between the rich and poor. Rubbish. The gap is closing all the time, thanks to the capitalist system.

Gun control. Already draconian in Australia. U.S - not our concern.

Racial discrimination. Wrong where it exists. But mainly in the minds of the likes of Bowden and people who are self-hating whites.

Abortion. Infanticide, Immoral and criminal. Barbaric.

Cloning. As above.

Asylum and refugees. A huge confidence trick.

Social obligations of business. Already into virtue signalling and look-at-me posing to the detriment of share-holder and customers.

Education. Pretty much dead in Australia.

It’s a good thing that everyone’s ‘morals’ are not line with those of Peter Bowden.

The blurb "Do no harm - Do good" is well meant, BUT overly simplistic in the real world.

The AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT HAS CONTRADICTORY CHOICES WHEN ALLOCATING LIMITED money, for eg:

A. A$1 Billion reducing malaria deaths in Africa?

OR

B. do you spend that same A$1 Billion prolonging the life of many elderly in Australia.

You can't save everyone with your limited money, despite noble intentions.

Moses was dealing with equally wayward Israelites when summoned to the mount for the helping hand of God to commission the Ten Commandments as a moral guide.

Not surprisingly, is his forty days and nights separated from the tribe, while this was underway, at the bottom of the mountain a golden calf was the worshippers choice (Capitalism). Tiring of waiting, (instant gratification), for Moses return, and assuming him dead, (God is dead), all obligation to a moral code evaporated.

throw out the truth of God's word and you end up with the contradictory blurb listed here. The more secular we have become the more immoral and self righteous.

@runner matey

Do you list your darling Cardinal Pell, being another card carrying Christian, as "..moral"?

Is Pell, like you "self righteous"?

'Is Pell, like you "self righteous"?'

sorry plantagenet without Christ I am as corrupt as you. And that's scary!

This article started well, but then it descended as "morality" was bent in order to suit the author's wishes/ideology.

This human tendency happens again and again, in all cultures.

Everyone can behave somewhat more morally using intuition and common sense alone, but to be a teacher of morality who guides others, one has to gain deep understanding of the scriptures by studying them with a competent master.

Ahimsa is just that, non-violence, abstaining from harming others.
All the rest about helping others and following one's duties is great and certainly has its place, but is not ahimsa.

The author points to the perennial question, "How to define harm".
Unfortunately, no finite definitions suffice to cover all situations.
Definitions are not a substitute for wisdom; wisdom comes from clarity of intellect; clarity of intellect comes from the abandonment of bad habits; and bad habits easily fall off by keeping good company, ideally where possible, the company of saints.

The author also refers to "the extent to which we weigh one harm against another. e.g. inflict a small harm in order to prevent a larger one.".
Well, this perceived possibility is superficial, indicating an ignorance as to the connectedness of all things. It also exemplifies why definitions are not enough. Looking deep enough, it is never required to perform a small harm in order to prevent a bigger harm. The problem here is that we might perceive something as a "small harm" because it falls within our favourite definition of "harm", but then again, definitions are never enough, exceptions abound and only true wisdom can discern the truth.

Yuyutsu

You've identified the problem of morality for the ungodly, in your criticism of the author and his conclusions.

For the theist, his deeds are answerable to a greater power, His God.

It's the critical point where comparisons of Eastern religions,which are effectively agnostic, seperate and become incompatible.

And as with the example by the cynical poster to runner viz a vis, Pell and his alleged evil deeds as a Christian, only God can judge what the outcome of the transgression will be.
That example also highlights the yawning gap, on the consequences of moral trangressions by believers in their God.; as opposed to trangressions by atheists (secularists) and their "ethics" equivalence.

Dan

1. By the way, are YOU a GOOD PERSON? http://youtu.be/muFAuRkE3-w

2. "God's words" which were always man-made, are constantly reinterpreted by old men - confusing moral paths.

"Do no harm," is a good starting point. However, I would say a better stand in this moral relativism of differing morals would be to love your neighbor.

Two issues need to be addressed though. On is the slippery logic of defining the word harm and then justifying abortions to not being harmful to the baby within. The second issue is one not addressed in the topic of ethics. What do you do when laws are broken and the moral compass to not harm is ignored. Justice exists because people do harm eachother, and how to either make right, or punish these situations is the main point of how societies form standards and systems for justice.

When a convict is put in jail the scope of do no harm is ignored because it is not the main issue in question.

There are many places that "do no harm" and "love your neighbor" can be applied. For instance in the business world maximum profit is the basis for many horrible decisions. Such as the increase of the housing markets to outpace the wages of the community (because you can raise them, so profits dictate you should) has made it so that those who look for homes they can mortgage and buy are unable to, and even those renting homes get outpaced to be able to afford it because the rate rent increases is more then any company increases a person's wages or hands out promotions.

This is just one area where do no harm could be tried at least to some degree by those making the decisions that would affect others. However, you can't moralize the rest of the world. All you can do is try to make your way through it, while at the same time setting for yourself a set of standards so you don't become like the rest of the world in the areas that are either greatly harmful, or unjust.

Plantagenet.

Quiz: your quote!

2. "God's words" which were always man-made, are constantly reinterpreted by old men - confusing moral paths.

Since science, through neuroimaging technique, concludes moral decision making is a mix of emotions and cold logic; and the science of market manipulation for capitalist purposes, is long known as an art form, why would not old men, along with young men and women for that matter, not be subject to moral manipulation against their normal better judgement?

Go with that one!

Dan

ttbn, Plantagenet , diver dan and runner all sound like middle aged white men. All negative,and completely out of touch with the world of today . They spend their time criticising those who search for improvement They miss the essential message of this opinion piece. They essentially represent the forces that have resisted change over the centuries If their methods had survived over those centuries we would still be back in the dark ages . Read it again , fellas, and argue the issue. The Dalai Lama's advocacy would make a better world

Dear Dan,

«For the theist, his deeds are answerable to a greater power, His God.

It's the critical point where comparisons of Eastern religions,which are effectively agnostic, seperate and become incompatible.»

Only Buddhism is agnostic.

Even according to Buddhism and certainly according to Hinduism, we are answerable to a greater power as our deeds must bear commensurate fruits, sweet or bitter as the case may be.