Leading An Ethical, Moral Life
(Essay #34, at 7-10-25)
Introduction
This Essay presents the Ethical Precepts of Nature’s Path of Continuing Creation. Leading an Ethical, Moral life is the foundation for Leading a Fulfilled and Happy Life within our Nature-based Secular-Spiritual Practice.
We are ethically and morally responsible for three things: Our fellow humans, Earth and its biosphere, and Nature’s Continuing Creation.
(Note: We will use the words ethical and moral interchangeably, although ethical connotes “reason-based,” and moral connotes “religion-based.”)
This Essay is the culmination of other topics covered (or to be covered) in this book about Nature’s Continuing Creation. These topics include the evolution of cooperation, the strengths and weaknesses of the major religions, and Humanity’s ethical progress since the time of the Old Major World Religions.
This Essay is the first of three interrelated Essays that provide Guidance for Our Lives:
1. This first life-guidance Essay (the one you are reading now) is about Leading an Ethical, Moral Life. It’s about “Should-Not-Do” behaviors and “Must-Do” behaviors. For example, we should not steal, and we must care for our children.
2. Our second life-guidance Essay, Leading a Virtuous & Honorable Life, is about character traits like the virtue of being temperate, and the virtue of helping strangers. It’s about should-do behaviors and praiseworthy behaviors. The Virtues extend beyond Ethical Precepts. For example, it is an Ethical/Moral Precept to share your wealth with your young, not yet independent, children; but it is a Virtue to share a percentage of your wealth with needy people outside your family.
3. The third life-guidance Essay in this series is Leading a Fulfilled & Happy Life. It’s about behaviors that we enjoy; behaviors that are enriching and rewarding. This third Essay also encompasses the vital Secular-Spiritual dimension of our Lives.
Our three life-guiding Essays present a continuum of human behavior extending upward from evil, to immoral, moral, virtuous, and finally to fulfilling behavior. A host of behavior-descriptive words can fill in points along this continuum. Moving from worst on the left, to best on the right, we might come up with adjectives like these:
Evil, Cruel, Immoral, Mean-spirited, Selfish, Indifferent, Doing-no-harm, Law-abiding, Civil, Courteous, Polite, Virtuous, Considerate, Helpful, Caring, Sharing, Giving, Charitable, Affectionate, Loving, and Creating.
Why Should We Be Ethical (and Virtuous)
“I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.” “A man’s ethical behavior should be based on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” — Albert Einstein 1
Some readers may ask, “Since no one can prove whether or not ‘God’ existed before the Initial Singularity (the ‘Big Bang’), why should we be Ethical and Virtuous?”
Readers may also ask, “Why should we be Moral and pursue Virtue, given one or more of the following three conditions?”
- All the answers of science seem to lead to still more questions.
- The four forces of the universe appear either (a) to be “carried” by virtual particles, or (b) to be “perturbations in force fields” — depending simply on how we look at them. (See our forthcoming Essay on Concepts from Modern Physics)
- Every system of coherent mathematics has a “trapdoor” that leads to a truth outside that system. (See our Essay, “Mathematics Evolves in Nature’s Continuing Creation.”)
The Practice of Nature’s Continuing Creation offers this two-part answer to these questions:
- While it may be impossible to know the whole truth about the cosmos, we do see a lot of approximate truths, and we improve our knowledge year by year.
- As the Existentialists say, “Existence before Essence.” This saying means that even though we do not know the ultimate essence (final truth) of life, we still have our existence (our actual lives). So, while we do not know all the answers, we each still must live, here and now, and therefore we must strive to live as rightly as we can, day by day.
Is Morality (Ethics) Absolute?
Since there is no anthropomorphic “Super-person God” who intervenes in human affairs, morality is not handed down from on high. Instead, morality has arisen naturally as part of the evolution of Nature’s Continuing Creation over the millennia.
- The evolution of Morality began before Humans existed on Earth. Humans are hardly the only creatures on Earth that have evolved some sense of morality and ethics.
- The earliest one-celled creatures evolved by incorporating other one-celled animals into themselves, for the symbiotic benefit of both.
- Worker ants (i.e., sister ants) work in close cooperation. They do not murder their own queen, and they typically attack only ants of other species or those from different colonies.
- Many mammal species, such as wolves, have a code of behavior that nurtures their young, keeps peace, and promotes cooperation within the pack.
Although human Morality and Ethics were not handed down by a supernatural God, they have evolved naturally from the Processes of Continuing Natural Creation.
In the broadest view of Our Directional Flow, there is no absolute morality. The “morality” of ants is different than that of humans. In fact, cooperation between sister ants may not rise to the level of morality, as ants have minimal consciousness and lack the freedom to choose. However, their genetic and instinctual cooperation is undoubtedly a precursor to morality in more complex species.
Even within human society, ethics and morality are not absolute, as evidenced by the fact that moral standards evolve over time. For example, in tribal cultures, it is often immoral to marry outside the tribe, while in a modern industrial democracy, this is not so. Even more recently, pre-marital sex between consenting adults is now considered moral in many industrial societies.
Cooperation, morality, and ethics, being products of our Creative Direction, evolve. Therefore, human ethics are not absolute.
The evolution of human morality is most fully described by the science of Sociobiology, a term made widely known by the biologist Edward O. Wilson (Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, 1975), and by the psychologist Jonathan Haidt (The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, 2012).
Is Human Ethics/Morality Cultural?
If Human Morality is not absolute, is it cultural? That is, do moral standards vary among different human cultures? Yes and No.
Yes, because some human societies today think it is moral to practice cannibalism and slavery, while other societies today think those behaviors are immoral.
No, because the evolution of concepts like God and Continuing Creation shows us that Human Morality, like technology, has progressed over the centuries. So, while tribal societies may practice slavery and child labor, modern industrial nations, informed by the Renaissance and the Enlightenment and enriched by the industrial and communications revolutions, have largely outlawed those practices.
Ethics must be continually cultivated, or we risk reverting to barbarism.
The Three Moral, Ethical Alignments
Participants in Nature’s Continuing Creation direct our moral/ethical behavior toward three overlapping realms of responsibility:
> Toward People: Family, Friends, Neighbors, Tribe, Citizens, Humanity
> Toward Earth and Earth’s Biosphere
> Toward Nature’s Continuing Creation
During our evolution as a species, we first morally aligned with other People. Today, we know that our morality toward other people grows out of an earlier mammalian morality, which in turn evolved from the Earth, and still earlier from the processes of Continuing Natural Creation.
Our three-directional Ethics can be represented as sides of an Ethical Triangle. For Weavers of Nature’s Continuing Creation, no one side is dominant, because all three are interdependent and mutually defining.
Our three-directional Ethics can be represented as sides of an Ethical-Moral Triangle or Triad:
Human Beings < > The Earth < > Continuing Creation
For Participants in Nature’s Continuing Creation, no one side of the Ethical Triangle (The Moral Triangle) is dominant, because all three are interdependent and mutually defining.
The triangle representation illustrates that we will constantly face difficult trade-offs among the three sides. When we push outward (progress) on one side, we must take care not to pull in (regress) either of the other two sides, thus decreasing the size of the triangle.
As we face trade-offs between the Three Ethical Sides of Life, we will also face trade-offs in most of our ethical decisions. Different eras of human history have emphasized different sides of the Moral/Ethical Triangle:
- In ancient hunter-gatherer societies, Mammalian nurture received the most emphasis.
- The Great religions, including Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam, extended Morality to all Humanity.
- Today, we must place an increasing emphasis on ethics & morality for the Earth, because if we do not stop our depredation of the environment and the accelerating extinction of species, we are dooming the future of our own human species on this planet.
- Our 21st-century alignment with the Growing, Organizing, and Direction means that we must pursue new knowledge, new technology, and new art while maintaining the other two Key Alignments.
Whenever possible, the best way forward is a strategy that advances two or even all three sides of the moral triangle simultaneously. For example, a person could decide to build a smaller house using fewer natural resources, thereby benefiting the Earth in an ethical manner. The same person could also donate money to construct the latest space telescope, ethically benefiting the technological progress of Continuing Creation.
Redemption While Traveling the Path of Continuing Creation
The Flow of Nature’s Continuing Creation shows that people can achieve ethical and secular-spiritual redemption. Good behavior later in life can make up for bad behavior earlier in life. The process of redemption requires an admission of wrongdoing, turning to God and to other people for help, a change in behavior and attitude, an apology, restitution, specific amends, and “living amends.” Living amends includes ethical, sound, constructive behavior in all three moral directions, and helping other people who want to recover and be redeemed. Your author, J.X. Mason, has lived the last half of his life on a Path of Redemption.
—————————————-
The Ethical Precepts of Nature’s Continuing Creation
The Ethical Precepts of Western civilization in the 21st century fall into two groups:
1. The Ethical Precepts of “Do No Harm.” This is the Morality of “Should-Not-Do,” or the Prohibitive Moral Precepts. This is the Morality that is most often addressed by laws and justice. These Rules are limitations on individual and group selfishness. The Moral Precepts of Do No Harm apply universally and equally to all humans, and universally to the entire ecology of Earth.
2. The Ethical Precepts of Doing Good. This is the Morality of “Should-Do” — the Morality of extending care, or the Proactive Ethical Precepts. These Rules are about sharing and giving. The Ethical Precepts of Doing Good are most strongly applied to one’s immediate family, to a lesser degree to friends and associates, and to a further lesser degree to strangers.
As you can see, the first group is stricter and is applied more universally than the second group.
For example, the negative precept, “Do Not Murder,” means do not murder any human being; while the positive precept “Share Your Wealth and Time Fully with your spouse and children,” would not be accepted if it were, “Share your Wealth and Time fully with any and all human beings.”
In reading our Lists of Ethical/Moral Precepts, remember that there are frequently “edge questions,” where one Precept rubs up against another.
For example, it is moral to pursue new knowledge, but is it ethical for an Astronaut to board a rocket and go explore the moon when he or she may never return to help raise his or her children?
“Absolute, dictated morality is lazy morality… because it requires no thinking!”
— The Rev. Dr. Becky Edmiston-Lange, Unitarian-Universalist Minister
General Discussion of the “Do No Harm” Ethical Precepts
The Ethical Precepts of “Do No Harm” are often summarized by the “negative version” of the Golden Rule. Golden Rule. The negative version of the Golden Rule is also called the “Silver Rule.”
Many of the Old Religions (plus Humanism) have their own versions of the Silver Rule:
> Judaism: “That which is hateful to you, do not to your fellows; this, in a few words, is the entire Torah; all the rest is but elaboration…” (Rabbi Hillel, 1st century BCE.) 2
> Hinduism: “This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you.” (Mahabharata 5:1517)
> Confucianism: “Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you.” (Analects 15:23)
> Buddhism: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” (Udana-Varga 5:18)
> Humanism: “Don’t do things you wouldn’t want to have done to you.” (The British Humanist Society)
The Do No Harm Precepts should be and often are extended outward from the family unit to encompass all humanity, and further on to encompass all living things, and further, to encompass the entire Ecosystem, Climate, and Geology of Earth. (The more active Precepts of Doing Good, however, are not extended as far. We discuss this later in the Essay.)
The Ethics of “Do No Harm” Can Be Situational
The ethical precept of “Do No Harm” can be challenging to accomplish in the real world. Proportional Justice requires attention to the motives, premeditation, and mitigating circumstances surrounding each moral violation.
For example, intent has always been crucial in determining violations of the Principle of “Do No Harm.” Killing someone by reckless accident is not murder, but “Involuntary manslaughter.” Murdering someone after willful premeditation is worse than murdering someone out of sudden anger. Murder and manslaughter are both “wrong,” i.e., they can never be good, but murder is more wrong than manslaughter.
Therefore, over the centuries, the law has evolved many different levels and aspects of the fundamental wrong of taking another human life. Here are just some of the situational distinctions addressed by the law:
- Intended harm is worse than accidental harm.
- Aggressive harm is worse than defensive harm.
- Defensive harm can be proportional to an attack or out of proportion to an attack.
- Harming children is worse than harming adults.
- Harm motivated by sadistic pleasure-seeking is worse than the harm done to steal money.
- Murder is worse than manslaughter.
- Murder can be in the first, second, or third degree.
- The harm done to life and limb is worse than the harm done to wealth and property.
Killing in self-defense and killing an attacker to save the life of a family member are usually not prosecuted at all. Most of us would not see these acts as immoral.
Consider the dilemma of having to choose between saving a stranger or a family member from a natural disaster, such as a falling tree. Many Christians claim they would struggle with this choice. Followers of Continuing Creation would not have difficulty because their love and concern for family members are stronger, both biologically and morally, for immediate family members than for strangers.
Complex questions can arise, often depending on individual circumstances: How can we choose one good over another? When can good ends justify bad means? When can a lesser wrong be used to fight a greater wrong? In response to this need, important institutions and practices of law evolved over the centuries, including experienced judges, consistency through precedent, and includes the right to legal representation, the right to a jury of one’s peers, a hearing before a trial, to a consideration of extenuating circumstances, and many others.
The Path of Natural Continuing Creation holds that Western Civilization’s body of law is a magnificent (but imperfect) product of the evolutionary processes of cultural Continuing Creation.
The Ethical Precepts of “Do No Harm” – Our Path’s List
> Do not hold any supernatural gods above or before Continuing Creation.
This Moral Precept updates the First of the Ten Commandments in the Torah (Exodus 20).
We update it here because Nature’s Flow of Continuing Creation (NCC) is the most accurate vision we have among all prior visions of God down through history. NCC incorporates and corrects all prior visions of “God.” Moreover, as our historical and scientific knowledge increases, our human conception of NCC must be changed accordingly.
This ethical precept keeps our thinking accurate and on track so that we do not fall into errant worship of old-fashioned Gods. By following this Precept, we avoid the tragic harm of religious warfare, where civilizations slaughter each other over land and over their competing visions of God, all of which are inadequate, incorrect, and dated.
> Do not worshipfully venerate Nature’s Continuing Creation — neither as an image nor as written words.
Since Nature’s Continuing Creation (NCC) is the sum of all processes that create and sustain all things, NCC itself cannot be contained in any idol, image, symbol, or description. It logically follows that no such representation should ever be venerated. However, words and symbols, each understood to be imperfect and partial, can be used to explain aspects of NCC in part. (This Precept restates the Second of the Ten Commandments in the Torah, “Do not make graven images of God” (Exodus 20:4).
> Do not misuse or misstate the meaning of Nature’s Continuing Creation for selfish or frivolous ends.
This Precept updates the Third of the Ten Commandments in the Torah, which is, “You should not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name (Exodus 20:7).
> No one should be a biological father or mother of more than two children.
This Precept exists because the world is overpopulated and getting worse every day. By “Overpopulated,” we mean that the Earth does not have the resources to meet all present desires of all its people, at least not by using present-day technologies.
The Earth is currently home to 4.4 billion people, and this number is expected to increase to 10 billion by 2050. It is not at all clear that we will avoid triggering accelerating and irreversible global warming as a result. With global warming, we can expect to see increased desertification, water shortages, violent storms, species loss, higher pollution levels, and social unrest. (For a complete discussion of these problems, see our Essay, Overpopulation Threatens Nature’s Continuing Creation.)
Everyone wants economic development and wants to live like people in the industrialized West do, but there are not enough world resources to provide that standard of living for everyone. The most effective solution to this problem is to reduce the world population through attrition and medical birth control.
We must prioritize the survival and well-being of the planetary biosphere over the numerical expansion of our human population.
Unfortunately, a major moral shortcoming of Old Religions such as Catholicism, Mormonism, and Islam is that they encourage unrestricted childbirth.
Max Weber, the “father of sociology,” wrote that all bureaucracies seek, first and foremost, to preserve themselves and increase their own power. That is the real reason why these and other “faiths” still encourage unrestricted childbirth in the 21st century.
> No one should restrict the birth of an unborn child once that child has entered the fourth month since conception; unless the mother’s life is at risk, or the conception is the result (or likely the result) of rape or incest, or unless the child is highly likely to have a medical condition that would severely diminish the child’s quality of life.
Note: It follows logically that no one should restrict the births of girls in favor of the births of boys. The cultural practices of the Chinese and a number of other cultures do this, and it is immoral/unethical.
> No one should father or mother a child, whether biologically or by adoption, who cannot provide food, shelter, clothing, medical care, education, and parental love for that child in concert with the existing benefit programs of their society.
Couples who commit to raising a child should also commit themselves to the sanctity and full duration of that task.
Couples who commit to raising a child should not commit adultery, because it threatens the stability of the child’s family.
A major Shortcoming of the Torah’s Ten Commandments is that while they say, “Honor your father and mother,” they say nothing prohibiting spousal abuse or child labor.
A major Shortcoming of Christianity is that Jesus said nothing about parenting or the importance of the family, except “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” (Matthew 19:14 New International Version.) In Christianity, nearly all the ethical morality of family relationships had to be supplied after Jesus’ death, as we first see in the Letters of St. Paul.
> No one should murder another human being.
Murder is killing another person for pleasure, financial gain, or power; also killing out of jealousy and many types of anger; and killing for no reason at all.
There are “degrees” of murder; and differences between murder and manslaughter, all of which are defined according to our complex and evolving body of law.
Murder does not include killing in self-defense to avoid imminent danger of severe harm to you or your family. It does not include most (but not) all killings done by soldiers during war or police officers trying to prevent an imminent serious crime.
The original commandment in the Torah, “You should not kill” originally meant not kill another Jew, i.e., another member of your tribe – the Tribe of Israel.
Murder can be thought of as stealing another person’s life.
In fact, all the Moral/Ethical Precepts of “Should-Not-Do” come down to a prohibition of stealing – stealing life, possessions, freedom, or sanity. “Do Not Steal” is a limitation on one’s own selfishness; on one’s own strength, for the greater good of the group.
> No one should kill or harm any animal or plant that is a member of a threatened or endangered species.
> No one should kill or harm any animal for any purpose other than for food, clothing, & defense.
Note that this Moral Precept is less radical than the analogous First Precept of Buddhist Dharma (Teaching), which says, “Avoid killing or harming living beings.” 3
Most people think it is surely worse to cause the death of a human through negligence than it is to cause the death of a non-human mammal through negligence.
Most people also believe that creatures resembling humans (such as chimpanzees) are more worthwhile than those that are very different from humans (such as spiders). So, we often think it is worse to allow the death of a mammal than an insect or reptile. Also, it seems worse to most of us to permit the death of a cute and cuddly mammal, such as a koala bear, than an ugly mammal like the warthog.
But modern science (itself a product of Nature’s Continuing Creation) teaches us that killing the last breeding members of an insect species is usually worse than killing one of our 7.4 billion humans. In fact, it may be morally worse to kill 20% of the world’s honeybees than one human being, because honeybees pollinate the world’s millions of flowering plants. No pollination, no baby plants, no food for us to eat.
“The world needs a ‘United Declaration of Plant and Animal Rights,’ just as it already has a United Nations ‘Declaration of Human Rights’ — J.X. Mason
> No one should steal or significantly harm an ecosystem or habitat of our biosphere, be it local or widespread, and no one should steal or significantly harm Earth’s atmosphere, waters, wildlife, or land.
To ignore this Ethical Precept, as President Trump did in 2017-18 by denying climate change, is to “Court the Wrath of God,” according to Jerry Brown, former Governor of California. Specifically, Governor Brown said, “I don’t think President Trump has a fear of the Lord, the fear of the wrath of God, which leads one to more humility … this is such a reckless disregard for the truth and for the existential consequences that can be unleashed.” 4
We Participants in Nature’s Continuing Creation agree entirely with former Governor Brown, except we would say the “Wrath of Mother Earth” rather than the “Wrath of God.” – JXM
Where conflicting objectives arise in the preservation and use of Earth’s natural resources, decisions should be made by appropriate legal authorities, provided they are informed by up-to-date scientific studies.
> No one should intentionally harm another person without moral and legal cause.
This Ethical/Moral Prohibition encompasses harms of all kinds, including physical harm, enslavement, torture, economic harm, sexual abuse, isolation, denial of freedom, emotional abuse, and brainwashing. Harm also includes the denial of opportunity, money, or recognition to any person based on the race, ethnicity, religion, age, sex, or gender of that person.
This Precept is similar to the Third Ethical Precept of both Buddhism and Taoism — to “Avoid sexual misconduct.” In today’s world, hiding women within walls or dressing them in airless black bags is fundamentally immoral. It violates human biology by denying women access to the sun, air, wind, and authentic face-to-face interaction with other people.
> Do not intentionally harm the mind or spirit of another sentient creature.
Although we hunt, raise, and kill animals for food, no one should prolong their death or treat them cruelly during their lives. Such cruelty includes close confinement and force-feeding.
No one should corrupt the innocence of children. The moral standards of tribal societies and fundamentalist religious communities are often cruel toward women, children, and animals. Tribal women endure beatings, genital mutilation, and death by stoning. Children are exploited for labor and sex. Tribal belief systems have often not been subjected to the light of reason and science.
Therefore, it is wrong for people in the United States today to say, “All religions are fundamentally alike,” or that “they are all based on the Golden Rule.” They are not. (See, God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World, by Stephen Prothero; Harper-Collins 2010.)
> No one should kidnap (steal) or harm human beings or other living creatures.
No one should kidnap (steal) or harm creatures belonging to a threatened or endangered species by taking them out of their natural habitat. However, creatures may be removed under due process of law if the removal is protective and furthers the survival of the creature and/or the habitat.
> Do not steal or harm the possessions of other human beings or steal or harm the habitat of threatened or endangered plants and animals. However, people may expropriate food, shelter, and clothing from the wealthy if they and their families are threatened with starvation, grave illness, or violent harm.
This Moral Precept is similar to the Second Precept of the Buddhist Dharma – “Avoid Stealing.” Note that the imperative to “Avoid Stealing” does not rule out the possible necessity of stealing food for survival.
In New Zealand, essential rivers and other natural features have the legal status of “persons.” This view has been taken from the Maori tradition. (For more, see our Essay, Overpopulation Threatens Continuing Creation.)
People who claim to be Christian are often the same people who believe in “Buyer Beware,” and think that it’s perfectly okay to use obfuscation and complexity to take advantage of ignorant, uneducated people. Credit card entrepreneurs, paycheck lenders, and ‘medical’ coverage scams are rife with such moral corruption.
Note that certain livelihoods are inherently involved in theft. The people who invented the credit card contributed to society by making monetary transactions and records more complete. However, executives of credit card companies often exploit the less educated by failing to clearly explain the high fees and escalating interest rates associated with their cards.
Store-front “payday lenders” are particularly likely to exploit people by lending them money they cannot afford to repay, and then foreclose on the borrower’s vehicle, leaving the owner with no means to get to work. These “predatory” practices arise in cultures dedicated to the unfettered principle of “caveat emptor” – “Let the Buyer Beware.”
Say you work in the field of finance. If you are a traditional banker, when you lend money to small and medium businesses to help them grow, you are contributing to the Practice of Continuing Nature’s Creation; you are a “pie-maker.”
But if you work for a credit card company, and your particular role is to create the obfuscating rules, the indecipherable fine print that first over-extends credit and then escalates the borrower’s interest rate beyond all reason, then you are not aligned with the Path of Nature’s Continuing Creation. You are not a “pie-maker,” you are a “pie-divider.” You might argue that it is up to the “invisible hand of market competition” to correct this situation. But Our Way of Continuing Natural Creation says, “No, the moral path is NOT always the path of unfettered markets. The Ethical path is a matter of individual choice and individual responsibility within a framework of full disclosure and sensible just regulations.”
> Do not lie (steal the truth), unless the lie is very small and telling the lie avoids the occurrence of great harm to others.
This Moral Precept is similar to the 8th Commandment of the Torah, “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” This Commandment does not prohibit all varieties of lying, but only “lying against a neighbor,” only when it really counts, e.g., when you are in court before a judge.
It is also similar to the Fourth Precept of Buddhist teaching, (the Dharma), to “Avoid lying.”
> No one should break their solemn oaths, promises, or contracts, except under extreme circumstances.
This precept could be seen as a version of “Do Not Steal” and/or “Do Not Lie.” However, it is important enough to deserve mention on its own. All cooperation between free and independent individuals depends on their mutual adherence to this moral principle. Contracts for the exchange of goods and services are legally enforceable. The marriage contract is traditionally “enforced” by God and God’s agents (even if they are only congregation members who wield the mild powers of social exclusion and disapproval.)
> Do not covet the spouse, partner, children, possessions, or powers of other people, nor the habitat of other living creatures; nor harbor resentments; nor seek any redress of grievances outside the redress provided by law.
Buddhism correctly teaches that desire is the root of all psychic suffering and keeps people from living within the Flow of Continuing Creation. However, our own secular-spiritual Path shows us that desire is hardly the root of all physical suffering. All we need to do is look at the world’s wars, accidents, and diseases.
The Ethical Precepts of Doing Good
While the Prohibitive Moral Precepts of ‘Do No Harm’ were about limits on taking, the Positive Ethical Precepts of ‘Doing Good’ are about giving – about sharing within our families, across generations, neighborhoods, tribes, nations, and the entire biosphere.
The Ethical Precepts of Doing Good are expressed by the Positive Golden Rule. The Positive version of the Golden Rule is the version we are all most familiar with, and the one that was said by Jesus:
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
— (Luke 6:31. See also Matthew 7:12)
Discussion of The Ethical Precepts of Doing Good
While many of our ethical and moral precepts are traditional, others are forward-looking. In a real-world application, our positive ethical and moral precepts usually require judicious management.
The Traditional, “Positive” Golden Rule
First, we find that the Golden Rule we are all familiar with, i.e., the Positive Golden Rule, lacks specificity. It begs the question of what ethical, moral behavior is.
For example, say you are walking near your home and you meet a traveling Stranger in need. The Golden Rule of Positivity tells you to treat the Stranger as you would have them treat you. But what is that treatment? Do you give the Stranger your spare change, or water and a lunch, or a free three-week stay in your home?
Clearly, the actual moral behavior comes not from the Positive Golden Rule, but from the cultural learnings of the two people on the road: Does the Stranger expect you to give him a three-week stay in your home? Do you expect to give him such a lengthy cost-free stay? The answers are culturally determined. If the two of you are in New York City, a gift of your spare change would be sufficient. In a remote desert of the Bedouin Middle East, a three-week stay in your home might be more appropriate.
Second, in practical application, you are naturally willing (and morally correct) to give more help to your family members than you are to strangers. Unlike the Moral Precepts of Do No Harm, the Moral Precepts of Do Good naturally apply with decreasing strength as individuals move from helping family members, outward to helping their circle of friends, to their circle of neighbors, to citizens of the same nation, and even further out to assisting strangers to from distant and unusual cultures.
Third, Positive Moral Precepts shade into Virtues. So, while a middle-class woman (or man) may follow Continuing Creation’s Moral Precept and give 5% of her time and/or income to charity, if she gives 20%, she is practicing a Virtue. We consider Virtues in our next Essay, “Leading a Virtuous & Honorable Life.”
The “Platinum” Golden Rule
There is a Moral Rule that goes even beyond the Positive Golden Rule. This is the more expansive, “multi-cultural,” version of the Positive Golden Rule called the “Positive Platinum Rule,” which says, “Do to others as they would want you to do for them.”
Following the Platinum Rule, the expectations of the Giver don’t count. Only the expectations of the Receiver count.
So, for example, a beggar asks you for money. The beggar would surely like you to give him not just the spare change in your pocket, but all the cash in your ATM account as well. The Platinum Rule instructs you to provide the Stranger with all that money.
Here is Jesus’ expression of the Platinum Rule in Christianity: “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” (Matthew 19:21; also, Luke 18:22; and Mark 10:21)
While it might be argued that love, empathy, and concern can be freely given because they are inexhaustible, Jesus is here encouraging his disciples to give away all their wealth. However, that may well have been because he expected the world to end soon!
Of course, the vast majority of followers of the Old Religions do not give away all their wealth, because they see that it would be irresponsible and ineffective in the long run. Only a small minority of Catholics — monks, priests, nuns, and some missionaries — adopt a vow of poverty.
The Platinum Rule is a shorthand expression for what The Practice of Continuing Natural Creation calls the “Morality of Radical Sharing.” In our Essay, “Radical Sharing & Universal Love Don’t Work,” we explain how the Morality of Radical Sharing is contrary to the Process of Continuing Creation because it is irresponsible and ineffective.
The Ethical Precepts of Doing Good – Our List
> Keep a sound body, mind, and spirit.
Each of us should strive to keep a sound body, mind, and spirit so that our lives may contribute most fully to the Natural Continuing Creation, including contribution to the lives and life around us.
As part of this effort, and as an outward sign of it, we should not take any mind-altering substances, including alcohol. If our lives and our beings are in rhythm with the Direction of Continuing Natural Creation, we have no need for the stimulating or depressing effects of mind-altering substances. This Moral Precept is analogous to the Fifth Precept of Buddhist Dharma, “Avoid alcohol and other intoxicating drugs.”
> We should weave our lives into the Pattern of Continuing Creation, and weave Nature’s Continuing Creation into the pattern of our lives.
Each of us should strive to live a life that contributes to the positive progress of Nature’s Continuing Creation.
This is what Christianity is trying to describe, albeit anthropomorphically, when Jesus said, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37); and “The Kingdom of God is in your midst,” (Luke 17:21). It is also expressed by the Westminster Catechism of the Presbyterian Church: “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.”
However, Interweaving Our Lives in Nature’s Continuing Creation (NCC) is very different from the Prime Islamic dictate, which is “Submission.” (In fact, the word “Islam” means Submission… to Allah, of course.) Participants in NCC, living in free countries, do not submit to anything except laws that are just. We do not kneel or bow down. We are not subservient, nor are we blindly accepting. Each Co-Creator in NCC is a conscious and proactive part of the “Whole of All Wholes,” and we do not deny our individual powers.
> Each of us should love, support, care for, and educate every child that is born of or adopted by that person.
Many animal species care for their young because it helps ensure that the parents’ genes, which are carried in their children, will survive beyond the childhood years when the children are small and vulnerable. Sociobiology teaches us that we humans naturally want to pass on our own genes and our family’s genes, more than we want strangers to pass on their genes. The human drive to care for our children is so strong that it can be called a “Moral Imperative,” meaning that it is rooted in our very biology, pre-dating all cultures.
The biological science realm of Nature’s Continuing Creation shows us that we humans should care more for immediate family members (and good friends) than we do for other people. Enlargement of equal care from family outward to all people is not consistent with the biology of self-preservation, especially now, when we have so many humans on our planet that we are like an infestation on the Earth. Therefore, Our Practice calls for a Moral Precept of “Family First.” In the twenty-first century, Nature’s Continuing Creation teaches that:
- Concern for Family comes first.
- Concern for the biosphere and Earth comes second.
- Concern for humans outside our immediate families comes third.
However, our mammalian drive to preserve Human Life need not conflict with our need to protect our Earthly environment.
All the following things are still totally immoral and utterly anathema: Ethnic cleansing, euthanizing the infirm, child labor, commanded selective breeding, and the cruel and unusual punishment of criminals.
Once a person is born, or near being born, that person has full rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the full protection of the law. However, it is also totally moral and critically necessary to limit the world population by means of safe birth control and family planning supervised by democratic governments. Birth control that prevents conception is vastly preferred over birth control by abortion. Birth by abortion must be reduced worldwide until it is reserved only for cases of rape, incest, and disease.
> Each of us should honor and help care for our father and mother.
The primacy of Family extends upward to the prior generation as well as downward to the next generation.
> Strive to Practice an Earth-centered Livelihood and Strive to Consume only Goods and Services that Do Not Harm the Earth.
Practice what Buddhism calls “Right Livelihood,” choosing, if at all possible, occupations that further the growth of Continuing Creation, the wellness of planetary ecology, and the quality of human life.
Strive to choose a career farming crops, welding steel girders, designing better microscopes, or educating children. Avoid careers writing advertisements for cigarettes or lumberjacking in old-growth forests.
Examples of Right Livelihoods:
- Creating or administering the creation of new technology.
- Creating new science or furthering its reach.
- Finding new historical knowledge or disseminating it.
- Creating new art or performing and displaying it.
- Producing goods and services with increasing honesty, sustainability, efficacy, and efficiency (including environmental and administrative efficiency).
- Helping people access the opportunities and legal remedies to which they are entitled under the law.
- Living self-sufficiently, consuming organic food, and using green energy.*
- Helping or teaching others to adopt Right Livelihoods, and to do them well.
However, people adopting low-carbon, organic lifestyles must take care not to reject ”high science,” for such science may be needed to create cheap solar energy, safe nuclear fission, and effective, universally available birth control for an Earth that remains “infested” by the human race. Similarly, choose to own two cars when two meet your family’s needs and no more.
Perhaps the most crucial choice people can make is to establish (hopefully to elect) Earth-centered governments. These governments should pass laws creating economic incentives that accurately reflect actual environmental costs, thereby leveling the playing field so that individuals making Environmentally Conscious life decisions are not economically penalized for doing so.
> Practice Positivity, Courtesy, Cooperation, Empathy, & Sympathy.
This is an Ethical Precept and not a Virtue, for three reasons:
- These attitudes and behaviors cost nothing except a small amount of time.
- Unlike money, these “character assets” are abundant and self-renewing.
- The practice of these behaviors benefits both the receiver and the giver.
Nearly all these Practices happen through speech. “Right Speech,” which is an integral part of Buddhism’s Eightfold Path, is spiritually essential, for what we say molds what we think, and what we think molds what we believe.
“Act as you would like to be, and so you shall become.” — unknown
“Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.” — Desiderata, a poem by Max Ehrmann
The Buddha said we should start by refraining from telling lies. After that, we should speak the truth, speak no gossip, speak to the point, speak without rancor, speak gently and politely, and speak at the right time. 5
> Cultivate a Positive Attitude, and Practice what Buddhism calls “Right Speech.”
> Practice Respect for the Rights & Opinions of Others.
This includes the practice of Common Courtesy and Helpfulness in the course of our everyday lives.
The Practices in this Precept are similar to Catholicism’s Seven Spiritual Works of Mercy, which are intended to relieve spiritual suffering:
- To instruct the ignorant.
- To counsel the doubtful.
- To admonish sinners.
- To bear wrongs patiently.
- To forgive offenses willingly.
- To comfort the afflicted.
- To pray for the living and the dead.
> Each of us, except the poor and the infirm, should give 3% of our money and/or time to charities for human, animal, or environmental welfare. Those of us who have above-average wealth should give more than 3% of our wealth in proportion to our total wealth.
This Precept is akin to the moral requirement in Islam for every financially stable Muslim to give 2.5% of their annual wealth to members of the community in need. In Arabic, this charity is known as zakat, which literally means “purification,” because zakat is considered to purify one’s heart of greed. (From www.islamreligion.com.)
The Talmud prescribes that Jews give a 10% tithe to the poor. In Hebrew, this is referred to as the “maaser.”
The Practice of Nature’s Continuing Creation holds that as an alternative to giving such things as food, shelter, and medical care to the poor, it is of equal moral value to give one’s time and money to support “causes of advancement,” such as scholarships, environmental organizations, scientific and medical research, and the arts. For us, charity also includes giving to members of one’s extended family, provided there is no expectation of recompense.
Routines and Disciplines for Practicing Ethics
Ethics/Morals are developed through concentration and practice – the same way that a person learns to play a sport or a musical instrument. We replace old habits by learning new ones; we replace bad behavior with ethical behavior.
The most powerful forces determining our morality and ethics are the education and training we receive as children, followed by the experiences we have as young adults.
As mature adults, the practices and disciplines most helpful in developing our Ethics are Mindfulness, Positive Thinking, and Meditation. These three practices are interrelated and also critically valuable for developing Virtues and attaining a Happy and Fulfilled Life. We discuss these mental skills in our Essays: “Leading a Fulfilled and Happy Life” and “Meditations for Nature’s Human Co-Creators.”
The Ethical Precepts of the Path of Continuing Creation are not liberal new-age fluff. They are traditional, even conservative. Why? Because they are part of the human evolutionary tree. They have evolved over thousands of years to become well-suited to human biology and sociobiology. Without a strong trunk, the branches of culture cannot grow and divide. There can be no creativity and no civilization without order and stability. The ethical precepts outlined in this Book about Nature’s Continuing Creation are fundamental, conservative, and cross-cultural moral and ethical principles for our time.
For a perspective supportive of this Essay, see a filmed lecture by Dr. Sam Harris, “Who Says Science Has Nothing to Say about Morality?” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm2Jrr0tRXk. In his 2010 book, The Moral Landscape, Dr. Harris argues that morally good things are those that promote the flourishing of sentient beings.
Additional Life-guidance Essays
In addition to this Essay on Leading an Ethical, Moral Life, you can find two additional Life-guidance Essays in this Book of Continuing Creation, presented free and without advertising:
______________________________
— J.X. Mason ContinuingCreation.org
- Albert Einstein, from Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman, Editors, Albert Einstein: The Human Side, 1979, Princeton University Press. And from Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science,” New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930.
- See also, Jonathan Haidt, The Happiness Hypothesis, page 45. See also, Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shabbos, Folio 31a, Schottenstein Edition, A. Dicker, trans. (New York, Mesorah Publications, 1996).
- Buddha Dharma Education Association. & BuddhaNet.com or .org.
- @Bill Whitaker, CBS reports, Sunday 60 Minutes, 12/10/2017, http://cbsn.ws/2BPgWk0.
- Buddha Dharma Education Association. & BuddhaNet. M. I, 179.
This is my comment.
I’m interested in the idea of theodicy, but I didn’t know where to start. I enjoyed this chapter very much.
Thanks so much, John!