JUNE 2009  Theosophical Independence

What Ought We to Do?

  In the last chapter of “The Bhagavad-Gita,” Krishna instructs Arjuna to “act as seemeth best unto thee.” This phrase could be adopted as the motto of all those aspiring to Theosophical independence. However, five-thousand years later we are still asking “what ought we to do?” Our western philosophers are not much help since they can’t seem to agree on universal ethical principles or even if such general principles exist.

  Our moral intuition often helps us recognize that a particular action is morally good or morally wrong. However, we often have to make decisions between actions that 
arouse conflicting moral intuitions. For example, Arjuna is conflicted between having to regain his kingdom which seems morally good to him and having to kill his former friends, teachers, and relatives which seems morally wrong to him. At this point, he can’t evaluate the situation on the basis of his moral intuitions alone. He needs general ethical principles which Krishna patiently discloses to him. Having general ethical principles should be very important because they help one identify an action as morally good or morally wrong and therefore to know what to do in the face of a moral dilemma.

  Are there universal ethical principles that can be applied in any situation?  Ethical theorists respond to this question in three ways. The philosophical position that there are no ethical values that are true for all people at all times is called Ethical Relativism. What one ought to do can only be assessed in relation to one’s wishes and aspirations, or in relation to the particular culture to which one belongs. On the other hand, Ethical Objectivism is the position that there are some universal moral truths. These truths exist independent of our relative individual and cultural moral judgments. Since Moral Objectivism can’t identify any one ethical principle that is true everywhere, for all people, at all times, some philosophers hold to the position of Moral Pluralism which states moral truth consists of multiple factors that each contribute to our understanding of moral reality, but do not individually embrace the whole truth. The four western schools of moral theory each embrace one of these factors. As we shall see, Theosophy synthesizes these four theories and shows how each has its place in the whole.

  The Divine Command Moral Theory proposes that an action is morally right if it is in harmony with God’s commands. Those who hold to this principle believe that God is the creator of moral rules. They tend to judge their moral intuitions and actions on the basis of a code of moral conduct handed down by this God or a divinely inspired being. Divine Command Moral Theory is primarily religion based. Restated Theosophically, this approach would evaluate any proposed action on the basis of its harmony with universal unity and the spiritual identity of all beings. Such actions are guided by a realization that universal brotherhood is a fact in nature and that the spiritual Self of each is one with the spiritual SELF of all.

  The Utilitarian Theory proposes that an action is morally right if it produces overall well-being and happiness. John Stuart Mill was one of the best known proponents of this approach. Those who believe that human happiness is the ultimate good hold to this theory. They also believe that actions have to be judged in relation to their consequences for producing happiness or misery.  Theosophically understood, this principle is the law of ethical causation. Any action that maintains or restores harmony where it has been disturbed is productive of the highest human happiness and well-being and is morally good. Those actions that disturb the harmony in nature are morally wrong and are productive of suffering and dis-ease. In this light, Utilitarian Theory is scientifically based.

  Deontology proposes that an action is morally right if the motive behind the action is good. The German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, developed this moral theory. It is called Deontology because it is based on the concept of duty. This theory proposes that good will has the highest moral value. It is not necessary to produce happiness all the time to be morally right. We are morally good, not because our efforts succeed in making the largest number of people happy, but because we try as hard as we can to perform our highest duty of good will to others. The other aspect of Kant’s theory is that moral rules are universal and are binding for all rational beings equally. He called this principle the “categorical imperative.” Another aspect of this principle is that we always respect the autonomy of another individual. Treat yourself and the other as an end in itself, not as a means to an end. Deontology is primarily motive-based. In the light of Theosophy, one altruistically performs those acts which are rightfully due to all beings and abandons all selfish personal interest in whether one’s efforts succeed or fail.

  Virtue-based Theory is not concerned with rules, consequences or motives. It emphasizes the role of the thinker as the agent in moral judgment. The emphasis here is on improving moral character and identifying what constitutes high moral character. Those who hold to this position ask “What sort of person ought I to be?” or “What sort of person ought I to become?”  An act is judged to be morally right if an agent who had all the virtues would have performed the action. They might ask themselves what would Jesus or Buddha do. This approach is based on the ideal of human moral perfectibility and is therefore evolution-based.  A theosophist might try to imagine how a perfected human being, who understands universal truths, might act in the same circumstance.

  Theosophy teaches that universal moral truth exists and provides one with universal principles to understand why they exist and how they can be discovered. Yet it regards every thinking self-conscious being capable of free-will and choice as an independent moral agent who must acquire this knowledge through effort.  In the course of this moral evolution, the thinker will adopt, hold, and discard many relative moral truths.  The self-realization of the principles of Deity, Law, and Evolution as taught in Theosophy are our best guide along the way.

Theosophical Movement  November 2008
“Patanjali points out that all knowledge rests in three things— pratyaksha, anuman and pramana, i.e., Perception, Inference and Testimony. First is what one sees for himself, i.e., one’s own perception. How do we know that we exist? Do we know because others tell us or by inference from what goes on about us? First and foremost we know it by self-perception. As Descartes says: “I think, therefore I am.” But, knowing that our perceptions are not infallible, we compare notes with others. We go to another and if he also says that he sees what we see then that becomes evidence. We then try to corroborate our perception with  ten or twenty other people and if their perceptions agree with our perception, then it becomes testimony. From our own perception combined with the testimony of others’ perception, we draw a conclusion, which we call inference. Though our theoretical knowledge of the purpose of life arises by inference—by observing lives of others around us or from the scriptures—its true realization depends upon self-evident perception.”

     “Theosophical Independence”  is produced monthly by Associates of The United Lodge of Theosophists in Philadelphia located at 1917 Walnut Street,   Philadelphia, PA  19103.   The contents of this newsletter are provided freely and anonymously.  It may be reproduced without permission.