Morality General Discussion/How Does The Force Affect Your Moral Views?

As Jedi, we are brought together by a similar belief in the Force, and while each individual seems to have a different definition of what the Force is, it seems widely accepted that certain traits of it include omnipresence and a binding factor (in that it allows for connection between objects). So there are guidelines in the doctrine which are related to ethics, and those are influenced by the belief in the Force – but the doctrine is not an all-inclusive page detailing the solutions to every ethical dilemma, and TOTJO allows for the individual to come to their own conclusions about issues. It would seem beneficial for us to discuss our own ethical stances and compare them with those of other Jedi, not only allowing ourselves to be open for criticism so that we may improve ourselves, morally, but also so that we can see how Jediism (and, moreover, a belief in the Force) actually influences our moral viewpoints and those of other Jedi.
I’d like this thread to be one where we can share a moral stance on a topic, whether it be on abortion or whether or not we have an obligation to open the door for someone else, and reflect on how Jediism effects those moral stances. We should also be able to have good discussion about differences in our points of views and why we have those differences. While the question isn’t very specific, to start the conversation I’d like to ask: how does your belief in the Force affect your moral views?

TheDude wrote: ...or whether or not we have an obligation to open the door for someone else...

I love this example so much that I'm going to use it as my spring board into this conversation. :laugh:

Last night my fiancee was coming home and noticed that our neighbor across the hall was attempting to move something rather large into his apartment. Now she could have stood and waited or gone around to the back door to bypass him. What she actually did was offer to hold the door open for him then call me to come out and help him carry it. An almost unarguably good act.

How does my view of the Force affect this? One of my favorite sections of "The Book" by Alan Watts is the part where he describes systems as being like one human body. The Force binds us all together into one system. Therefore helping out one person is helping out the whole. Similar to the way that the hand brings food to the mouth so that the entire body can survive. I help other people because they are a part of the same system that I am and I want that system to be healthy.

I would like to note, however, that I do not go out of my way to hold the door open for my fiancee at all times because she is a grown woman who is fully capable of opening her own doors and I treat her as such, which she appreciates (and she would be mad at me if I didn't ).

TheDude wrote: While the question isn’t very specific, to start the conversation I’d like to ask: how does your belief in the Force affect your moral views?

The attributes which seem most limiting to our experience of living, are things like death (time) and discomfort (pain/pleasure[space]) so I tend towards measures of efficiency and load sharing to define a middle position to allow variations to be embraced, trialed, experience or supported.

I'm probably the worst person to ask about the interaction between empathy and social intelligence, but it (a measure of empathy to invite situational awareness) would seem to best define that neutral safe ground where one can both generate a height of self experience while maximizing the opportunities for the non-self to accurately express their own truth (thus removing obstructions/defilements from Force awareness).

So about who opens the door... whoever is closest, most capable, or most eager to demonstrate something perhaps!?

I have been thinking lately about my belief in the Force while speaking to friends of mine who happen to be in, or have been in, the military. While I certainly don't want to disrespect the military or my friends, it's hard for me to reconcile the idea of armed forces and Jediism. Perhaps military members here on TOTJO can offer another point of view.
My issue is that the military is seen as necessary for peacekeeping and demonstrating the abilities of a nation -- and that there are certainly good aspects of the military and how it affects some people (some for good, others for worse, but there is some good). But I've always seen actually joining the military willingly to being akin to agreeing to possibly being put in a situation where you have to harm another person, and receiving training to more efficiently use tools meant for ending lives (automatic weapons, grenades, and so on). As for myself, I don't even like the idea that my tax dollars could go towards harming another person, and I couldn't commit myself to joining the armed forces. While I recognize that there are situations that a member of the military may face where taking the life of another person could result in many more people living or being in a better position in life, I'm having trouble seeing why someone would put themselves in that position.

One of the first things listed on the TOTJO doctrine page is that we believe: "In the Force, and in the inherent worth of all life within it." And at the same time, we also say "There is no Death, there is the Force." Is this how we should reconcile such actions? If I were to kill another person out of necessity or to reach some preferable outcome, should I say that it's alright since the experience we have in this world is only an aspect of a greater whole, the Force, and that a person dying by my hand is ultimately either better off (having transcended this empirical reality and become one with the Force, without obstacles), or unaffected (being no more or less than part of the Force to begin with, this not having changed with life or death)? If I'm to take one of those two opinions, I don't know how I could justifiably say that I believe in the inherent worth of all life within the Force. It leaves me at a moral impasse. Should I be in a kill-or-be-killed situation, I can't imagine trying to calculate whether or not the other person's life is worth more or less than mine, if such a calculation is even possible.

I hope someone here could explain their point of view to me.

TheDude wrote: ..I'm having trouble seeing why someone would put themselves in that position.

I havent been in the military. But I have a few opinions about it.... once serving your not there to make those decisions yourself so much, but rather follow the rules required of your job duty. That doesn't mean obey without question, it means obey within broader parameters of service (which can even include disobeying! (if its an unlawful order)).

Professionalism might be seen as a merging of ones capacity to reinforce that job duty with ones own values, but I wouldn't view them as being interchangible. In simplest terms, three important principles of international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict are necessity, distinction, and proportionality. Those things determine ones actions within (lawful) orders AFAIK. Why do it... because there is a real need and those willing or able are best positioned to meet that requirement.

Its even possible to associate those things to the Temple's Tenets;
Focus -> Necessity; efforts to achieve effect justified in broader context of conflict.
Knowledge -> Distinction; whereby belligerents must distinguish between combatants and civilians.
Wisdom -> Proportionality; not inflict excessive damage in relation to the efforts to achieve the required military effect.

So there is real ground there for someone to work towards a level of professional best practise, to achieve peaceful outcomes through measured use of force. Someones got to do it, so why not someone who cares the most about achieving the most peaceful outcome possible given the harsh circumstance.

The next question in the way I look at it, is by what standards does the chain of command operate and make decisions. If they are following the same rules and standards outlined by the Laws of War then it should be about using force to create a more peaceful solution given some initial conditions which were illegal. Of course I'm not trying to justify any particular action, but the mechanism seems valid if we can find some common ground on what constitutes legal, ethical and moral. So I tend to look at the charter of human rights as a good starting point for that... but the devil is in the detail and all cultures bring their own nature of details
:pinch:

but the doctrine is not an all-inclusive page detailing the solutions to every ethical dilemma

The solution to every ethical dilemma (or any general dilemma) is UNITY. See everything as ONE and there is nothing that cannot be solved.

Every now and then I trot this quote out but only because it's relevant.. "We each make sense of our spiritual experience but we do not imagine that the way we understand the holy is necessarily right for anyone else." My experience of the Force and our doctrine (and my general moral stance) is that I don't agree with the death penalty (as one example that I've actually been in a discussion on TOTJO for).. but another Jedi may follow the same doctrine, the same connection to the Force and come to a different conclusion. In 'Living the Quaker Way', which is where that quote is from, the author gives the example of conscription during World War II. Quakers have similar values to us and some of them believed the only way was conscientious objection (and therefore imprisonment), whereas others believed it meant fighting. Occasionally we'll have a thread about something like the Death Penalty and some will ask how Jedi can have such opposing opinions, but it is because we experience and understand values differently. Some of that reason will be because of our social environment, our culture, our life experience etc.

how does your belief in the Force affect your moral views?

My belief in the Force is a consequence of other beliefs I have. I don't believe in a spiritual 'Force' but I do believe in the One as a series of connections ("While All is in The All, it is equally true that The All is in All."). As Goken says about helping others is helping ourselves, to kill another as punishment is to also kill a bit of ourselves. That argument is also why I disagree with animal testing and certain farming practices.

Generally my belief in the Force leads me to a 'treat others as I wish to be treated' kind of mentality. I know that this can cause issues where 'how I would like to be treated' is not the same for every person. I know though that I am a compassionate, fair, open and understanding person.. so I will treat all others by that standard.

For me, I think that morality is centered around what observably does the greatest amount of good for the most. To so I will be a hero. To others i will be a villain. I can't change the way that other perceive what I do. Only trust that the best will come of what the action I have taken. I don't seen the Force or even the concept of a God to have any moral fabric. I think that both concepts supersede our understanding of morals. We act in an absolute fashion without absolute knowledge. So how can we possibly know if the ultimate results of our actions will be a net positive. We can't see the lasting change before we act. An entity or a thing that is universal or infinite would have not concept of morality as it would always know the absolute result of any action. Therefore, my belief is that morality is based on the belief that said action net a positive result. The Force is amoral as it is for all intents and purposes, infinite and is supposedly a net balance. A God would be the same to me. And actually, God would have to be a net balance as well. One may not have all power and be unable to commit an evil act. Being good implies and option to do evil and making the choice to not do it. Thus, Morality and The Force are totally separate for me.