Virtue and Ethics in the Martial Arts?

[arnisador]

Thread moved.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-

 

[tshadowchaser]

Seeing as how ethics have been brought up in a few threads lately I thought I would bring this thread up again

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Some recent events have led me to much thought as of late, and my mind wandered to this post I made 3 years ago. It seems, important right now.

 

[Kacey]

Ethics and morality are too often ignored in today's society; for too many people, expediency is the rule. For others, the rule becomes the ends justifies the means.

Unacceptable behavior appears to be accelerating; not that unacceptable behavior is, necessarily, occurring more often - rather, the line between unacceptable and acceptable behavior appears to be moving farther and farther into the realm of what was unacceptable in the past. How far will the line move before the pendulum swings back again?

 

[matt.m]

You know this is a really great topic. My father is a master 5th dan in hapkido. He reads a lot of literature and philosophy. He is one of the most well read people I have ever known, he also is always on the quest to seek greater knowledge... It doesn't matter what topic he just wants to read and research.

One of his great friends and the grandmaster I train under is an astronomy teacher for a high school. He also goes to many plays at the Fox Theatre. The point is that the higher the dan rank the more knowledge one seeks in Liberal Art education.

These are just two examples there are many more I could point out. I believe there is a direct correlation to Martial rank and knowledge in general.

 

[shesulsa]

I think Virtue and Ethics must go hand-in-hand with other elements belonging under the heading of scruples.

It is far to easy to cut one's nose off to spite their face when we don't think clearly of all dangers, all options, appropriate, incisive action versus flailing warmongering. At times, the ethical, virtuous action appears to be simple and sometimes some people will not fail to impale themselves upon steel thinking all they do is right and all else is wrong and failing. Sad, when careful consideration, Scruples, and the right job done by the right person can be just the right stuff.

What is ethics, then? Is it a black-and-white shopping list of right and wrong? Is the arrival of values and application of honor on all levels when choosing action? Are ethics defined by an individual, a family credo, Dharma, Judeo-Christian doctrine? Is it an agreed-upon code of conduct?

Thoughts? Comments?

 

[exile]

What is ethics, then? Is it a black-and-white shopping list of right and wrong? Is the arrival of values and application of honor on all levels when choosing action? Are ethics defined by an individual, a family credo, Dharma, Judeo-Christian doctrine? Is it an agreed-upon code of conduct?

Thoughts? Comments?

Whew!

My first thought is, 2 in the morning is a bit too late to dive into that question. But my sense is that it's a mistake to try to tackle the question head-on. I suspect the problem is more approachable if we start by asking how people's ethical sense manifests itself. I think of ethics as what someone, don't remember who, called `that small, still voice that lies within'. It's the thing that drives your conscience, some code you've worked out of how one should behave, not because one is told to by a particular moral code or set of religious precepts or other doctrine, but because of something inherent in our relations to others, and I think empathy---the ability to imagine and sympathize with the feelings and inner life of other people---is a crucial component of that inner voice. I'm not saying that philosophical or religious doctrine can't feed that inner sense, but it's very interesting how often one reads about people who contravened the teachings of their religious or social upbringing to do something---typically, on behalf of some other person---because there was something inherently right and therefore necessary about the action. Whatever the source of our ethical sense, it's what drives that kind of action---often against the material `real world' interests of the person who carries out the action.

 

[shesulsa]

Hmm. Good post, exile ... well said, curious and titillating.

May I point, temporarily, to a few things you wrote I'd like for us to expand on?

I think of ethics as what someone, don't remember who, called `that small, still voice that lies within'. It's the thing that drives your conscience, some code you've worked out of how one should behave, not because one is told to by a particular moral code or set of religious precepts or other doctrine, but because of something inherent in our relations to others, and I think empathy---the ability to imagine and sympathize with the feelings and inner life of other people---is a crucial component of that inner voice.

Interesting you reference the conscience here, because your description is how I would have described conscience itself. I'm thinking as I'm typing now, however, that conscience is one of the elements which shape ethics and ethics drive action.

I think of ethics as more of a smaller, more defined set of principles - the "bottom line," "buck stops here" definition of the most important things one can decide ... like using only necessary force (don't kill unless you absolutely have no other choice besides dying yourself), vows of loyalty (such as those in marriage), taking careful action without harming others (such as the Hippocratic Oath taken by physicians), etcetera.

And...

... it's very interesting how often one reads about people who contravened the teachings of their religious or social upbringing to do something---typically, on behalf of some other person---because there was something inherently right and therefore necessary about the action.

Indeeed it is interesting. This begs my question as to a sense of legacy which may be inherent (I think) in the foundation of ethics building and defining, hence leaving much to be personally definitive rather than socially definitive and *therein* we should explore the issue of personal ethics as opposed to generally accepted societal ethics and where the latter come from.

And what of virtue? Virtue has been defined as physical purity a.k.a. virginity, but there are elements/qualities of personal being that are called 'virtues' such as are defined by religious people. Is virtue purity? and how do we define that? An absence of sexual contact? An absence of evil? If this, how can anyone be virtuous as the only entity (allegedly) without evil is God? Is 'virtue' then the stipulation that one acts solely on ethics with pure intent? And then we must, of course, define 'Pure.'

Meh!

Let's grab the java and chat!!!

 

[Kreth]

I think of ethics as what someone, don't remember who, called `that small, still voice that lies within'.

Wasn't it Metal Church?

 

[exile]

Hmm. Good post, exile ... well said, curious and titillating.

May I point, temporarily, to a few things you wrote I'd like for us to expand on?

Interesting you reference the conscience here, because your description is how I would have described conscience itself. I'm thinking as I'm typing now, however, that conscience is one of the elements which shape ethics and ethics drive action.

I think of ethics as more of a smaller, more defined set of principles - the "bottom line," "buck stops here" definition of the most important things one can decide ... like using only necessary force (don't kill unless you absolutely have no other choice besides dying yourself), vows of loyalty (such as those in marriage), taking careful action without harming others (such as the Hippocratic Oath taken by physicians), etcetera.

Shesulsa---

I agree, those things you're pointing out are part a (possible) set of ethical principles. I do think that ethics is kind of the formal expression of what it is that shapes our consciences---an ethical principle (of the sort you give) is a kind of universal statement which we think of underpinning the particular responses we have that call our conscience. But my sense---this is all kind of thinking aloud, right?---is that our internal conscience-response, what that small voice is telling us, comes first, and subsequently we ramp it up into a general principle, to explain why we have the response we do. But the internal response is primary. So then, where does that come from? I can make a guess...

This may be too much a reflection of my own experience. But I have a sense that our consciences reflect our own sense of vulnerability in the world---specifically, I'm guessing that every person has a sense of what there is in the world that they most want not to happen (kind of the inverse of the Mirror of Erised in the first Harry Potter novel), and what we want is for the world to be governed by principles in such a way that those things are less likely to happen to us. Some of that sense of vulnerability is brought on by things that actually happen to as children, I suspect, but other parts of it are the result of our empathetic imagination---we see something bad that happens to someone else, feel bad because we can visualize it happening to us, and so add to our list of desirata additional principles that, if they held universally, would block that thing from happening. I think our adult consciences are the result of our monitoring ourselves in terms of these ultimately self-protective desires---we start off being bullied or taken advantage of because we're small and weak, or because we see it happening to someone else and realize that it could just as well have been us, and we want the world to a place such that that sort of thing doesn't happen to anyone. I have always suspected that that bumper sticker saying---`Practice random acts of kindness'---is a reflection of our desire for the world to be a place where such acts actually do occur, and that if we practice them, then it becomes more like such a place.

I'm not being cynical, I hope, in thinking that self-protectiveness is where our ethical sense has its roots. I don't thing there's anything wrong with self-protection as a motive---certainly we as MAists subscribe to the idea that the more we can protect ourselves, the better, eh?

And...

Indeeed it is interesting. This begs my question as to a sense of legacy which may be inherent (I think) in the foundation of ethics building and defining, hence leaving much to be personally definitive rather than socially definitive and *therein* we should explore the issue of personal ethics as opposed to generally accepted societal ethics and where the latter come from.

Does anything that I've been speculating about in the above speak to this point you're raising? I think that what I'm saying suggests that ethics does arise in the individual, because protection of the self (and others we identify with via our imaginative abilities) is of course based in the individual, but it implicates the social dimension because in order for the world to be the kind of place that makes us safe, there has to be agreement among individuals to behave in certain ways. I also think that society has certain values that may benefit itself at the expense of individual well-being (perfect example: the human sacrifice practices revealed in the horrifying ending to Shirley Jackson's grim masterpiece `The Lottery'), but that's a whole 'nother story...

And what of virtue? Virtue has been defined as physical purity a.k.a. virginity, but there are elements/qualities of personal being that are called 'virtues' such as are defined by religious people. Is virtue purity? and how do we define that? An absence of sexual contact? An absence of evil? If this, how can anyone be virtuous as the only entity (allegedly) without evil is God? Is 'virtue' then the stipulation that one acts solely on ethics with pure intent? And then we must, of course, define 'Pure.'

Meh!

Let's grab the java and chat!!!

Ah, virtue... now that you bring it up, I really don't know what to make of the notion of virtue. I think of it as something that actually is on a slightly different plane from ethics---so people say, `Patience is a virtue', `Thrift is a virtue' etc., but it's possible to agree with those statements without thinking of either patience or thrift as having an ethical dimension... The way I think of `a virtue', it connotes something like `wise practice'. I'm not sure what this has to do with the sense of `virtue' in general---yes, it connotes sexual purity (however that's defined) in some contexts (Victorian literary descriptions of a woman as `virtuous', e.g.) but it also shows up in contexts with no sexual overtones, like when someone is described as having carried out a `virtuous deed'... ???

 

[Kacey]

I think Virtue and Ethics must go hand-in-hand with other elements belonging under the heading of scruples.

Hmm... interesting... I should never try to answer questions like this while eating; I get lunch all over the keyboard... and I only have 30 minutes for lunch.

Well, being the child of an English professor who is also a librarian, I'm going to start with some definitions, because I think all of these concepts are inter-related; after giving the definitions from Merriam-Webster, I'll go back and give my opinon. I only took the definition that seems to be relevant to the discussion; did you know that 'scruple' originally referred to a weight?

Main Entry: 2scruple
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English scripil, scrupill, from Anglo-French scruble, from Latin scrupulus, diminutive of scrupus source of uneasiness, literally, sharp stone
1 : an ethical consideration or principle that inhibits action
2 : the quality or state of being scrupulous
3 : mental reservation
synonym see [SIZE=-1]QUALM[/SIZE]

Main Entry: eth·ic
Pronunciation: 'e-thik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ethik, from Middle French ethique, from Latin ethice, from Greek EthikE, from Ethikos
1 plural but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a : a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> <an old-fashioned work ethic> -- often used in plural but sing. or plural in constr. <an elaborate ethics> <Christian ethics> b plural but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics> c : a guiding philosophy d : a consciousness of moral importance <forge a conservation ethic>
3 plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness) <debated the ethics of human cloning>

Main Entry: 2mor·al
Pronunciation: 'mor-&l, 'mär-; 3 is m&-'ral
Function: noun
1 a : the moral significance or practical lesson (as of a story) b : a passage pointing out usually in conclusion the lesson to be drawn from a story
2 plural a : moral practices or teachings : modes of conduct b : [SIZE=-1]ETHICS[/SIZE]
3 : [SIZE=-1]MORALE[/SIZE]

Now, for myself, I see 'ethics' as the over-arching category here; one has moral values about certain issues; one has scruples about certain issues; one's personal ethic (or value system) - which is based on one's scruples and morals - gives guidance in situations not yet touched by the ones which shape ones morals and scruples. So I guess I'm saying that I consider scruples and morals to be based on responses to specific situations, while I consider ethics, in principle, to be the guiding force behind the decisions and actions that form scruples and morals, but certainly, they are related.
So - to get to the specific questions:

What is ethics, then? Is it a black-and-white shopping list of right and wrong? Is the arrival of values and application of honor on all levels when choosing action?

I think that ethics is the system within which people make decisions that have moral implications. This system changes with time and experience; as a person experiences more of life, then s/he has more data on which to make decisions, and a greater body of experience to compare new experiences to. Also, to a certain extent, ethics is developmental; I lean toward Kohlberg's stages of Moral Development, as follows (just the stages; follow the link for more information):

Level 1. Preconventional Morality (ages birth - 12, more or less)
Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation.
Roughly, do it and I'll reward you; don't do it and I'll punish youStage 2. Individualism and Exchange.
Doing what's best for me.
Level II. Conventional Morality (teens, young adults)

Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships.
Doing what will make others happy with me (applies mostly to small groups)
Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order.
Doing what is best for society, as defined by society - that is, being law-abiding. Many adults never develop past this point.
Level III. Postconventional Morality (adults)

Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights.
Doing what is best for society, even if that means changing society's rules for its own betterment - activism often falls here.
Stage 6: Universal Principles.
Ghandi. Following the principles on which society is founded, rather than the laws which express those principles; doing right because it is the right thing to do. Very few people reach this level.

Now, having tossed all of this information from other people in, I think that ethics are formed in Stage 5, although this development is not smooth, and people often show one stage in one situation, and another in a different situation.

Are ethics defined by an individual, a family credo, Dharma, Judeo-Christian doctrine? Is it an agreed-upon code of conduct?

I think that there is a strong cultural context to this question. In some cultures, ethics are a cultural value - but thinking about my original definition of ethics as the overarching system, with scruples and values being facets of that system, I think that most doctrine teaches morals and scruples - not ethics. Ethics, I think, is a personal belief system that goes above and beyond the codes of behavior taught by most religions, cultures, and other belief systems.

Now for a question of my own: What is integrity, and how does it fit into discussions and applications of ethics, morals, and scruples?