Welcome to Gaia! ::

It seems to me if i recall correctly the butterfly effect. The idea that every single thing that happens will eventually effect something else. I think to sum it up it would

be. All is one and one is all. I wonder is it simply paranoia of something bad happening to someone you know or to yourself that is affecting you. It might be

best to just let go of the thoughts for the time being if it is causing you worry. Just empty your mind of those ideas. I'm not saying they are bad ideas but if something

causes harm to people it is best to avoid it. I'm not really sure if anything i said really has to do with what you ask but it is the best thing i can think of at the moment.

I wish you the best of luck on you problem and hope i was a help in some way.

timechanter: At one time, I admit, it was paranoia. Now, not so much. I've explained in my OP that I superficially don't care as much about my actions as I used to, and the result of this is that I become more willing to commit to actions. So you can say I am already "letting go of the thoughts for the time being". However, I would like a long-term solution to this problem.

whynaut: I guess the reason I don't get along too well with Absurdism has to do with probabilty. For the most part, well-intended and rational actions have a higher probability of bringing a positive influence than a negative one. And yes, I've had both scenarios happen to me regarding papers and academic projects but those were a minority compared to the number of project marks that actually reflected my work and thought processes. So I guess I'm looking for a way to minimize the probability of my causing harm to others.

This is all true, save the part about rules. This doesn't solve her troubles with ethics. In fact, Absurdism denounces any ethics at all. As you said, "there are no rules." Even if something good became of a bad action, you've still done something bad. And I highly doubt that you go around doing bad in hopes that good things will come to others through it. Intentions matter.

If you believe there are no rules, why are you still using terms like "good" and "bad?" We must be ever so careful not to contradict ourselves, lest we look like fools.

Rachael: I've read your reply regarding absurdist thought, but it seems you're merel reinforcing what I've said in reply to that as well, as opposed to offering something new. I'm not sure if you've read that reply.

The guilt is there, as mentioned in my OP. However, it's not so much a matter of wanting to "fix it all" as this would be too patronizing for my taste. I do not know the desires of others and this generally varies from culture to culture. To impose my belief on what is good for the world simply does not sit well with me.

It is up to the other to tell me what they desire. But that does not prevent me from committing to my actions (or inactions). The fact that I'm already acting (e.g. I'm typing on this keyboard to reply right now) means that I'm committing myself to an action that will influence others regardless of my intention. And all I have going for me is the hope that my action has a higher probability of fulfilling my intention than a lower one. That's a bit unsettling since it's difficult to determine that probability, especially when trying out something new.

And this leads into the "******** it, I'll do it anyway" attitude. How am I supposed to determine probability if I don't experiment and gain results? Of course, I also observe the actions and results of others but that also means that they would have to commit actions that I don't morally support. By association, I'm using their immoral action for my own selfish means. That does not make me noble. Remorse for an immoral action does not me noble either, since the remorse itself does not have any influence on others.


Fae Yin: I'm Chinese, and I have decent (albeit what I'd honestly consider superficial) understanding of Taoism. Not so much for Buddhism, particularly not Zen. The problem is that I have a hard time defining what REALLY comprises of Yin or Yang since much of Tao Te Ching focuses on how to stay within the middle as opposed to either extreme. And because of that, it almost seems as if either extreme can be deemed as "evil" or simply "not recommended". Likewise, the submission to earthly desires in Buddhist philosophy is also "not recommended". The fact that it is "recommended" to say near the centre of the spectrum of good and evil is already creating a new dichotomy of extremes vs. moderation.

In my OP, I had requested that all repliers to this thread to be easy on me, as this is a personal issue. While I have been thinking over the points you mentioned in your latest post, I do not appreciate you calling me an egotist or assuming that I think myself "important enough to be the governer of well being". I hope you can respect my request in future posts in this thread, especially since I've been going through a rough time the past couple weeks and Gaia is supposedly a place for me to blow off steam. I was on the verge of tears when I logged on to read your reply and actually started crying after reading it... but this was yesterday.

Moving on to the meat and potatoes....

Regarding intentions, that is one of the issues that I haven't found an answer I can rely on. My previous post regarding the absurdism uses the consequentialist argument. To be honest, I don't even know if I believe in consequentialism. It's useful to a certain extent, particularly within the realm of economics. But when it goes into moral theory, I'm undecided.

Your interpretation of "I'm too worried about others" and "It's my responsibility to please others" are somewhat true. I guess it's the latter statement I should further elaborate: you see, if I commit an action, that action is mine. So the consequence of that action is my responsibility, not that of others. It is not so much that the initial action must profit someone, but that it does not harm someone. However, the result does not necessarily reflect intention. And here, we go back to the whole consequentialism thing and me flinging my arms in the air, crying "I don't bloody know!"

I personally think of morality as more of a flimsy ideological structure where we could co-exist peacefully. So to do "wrong" in this case truly is about doing "the wrong thing in anyone's eyes", in your words. However, I would not take it to the extreme that "anyone" is capable of sound moral judgment. But on the same note, I have no clue who or how many people it takes to prove an action to be right or wrong. As for my worrying about my salvation as opposed to sincerely worrying about others, that is not true but all the proof I have does not exist within an online environment. I guess you can either take my word for it or please leave me be.

And while I believe that people have full capability of caring for themselves, there are many situations in which power is imposed on them and we are indirectly the cause of this power... as in the sweatshop example. I cannot simply say that it is not my intention for sweatshops to exist, because many of the countries that house these places have poor and corrupt governments. The people who work in them still need to make a living and the only option that they see is to work in a sweatshop. To destroy the sweatshop is to destroy their means of living unless a new way for them to earn money is developed. But then, I'd still question the whole concept of money. And there are many people in North America who buy brand name clothes and do not know about sweatshops. This means that they do not intend exploit the labours of sweatshop employees. But does this mean that they should not be held accountable? Part of me says yes and part of me says no.

That's okay, but I guess what just happened here can prove my statement on consequentialism. Does the intention matter more or does the consequence matter more? Your intention was good: to show me a different perspective. The consequence wasn't: I reacted negatively to it. Now apply this scenario to multitudes of other scenarios. That's where I'm stuck. Mind you, this entire incident was minor and reading your reply was more of a trigger than a real cause of my stress. I actually needed a wake up call. Thank you for that and for your apology.

And you know, what you said here is quite similar to what my younger brother - also an intelligent Christian - said to me a month ago. But about "pleasing everyone", I refer to my previous reply. It's not about pleasing everyone as being accountable for my past actions, whether or not they have a direct influence on others or not. I'm satisfied enough to make sure my action does not hurt anyone. To make sure it pleases everyone is way off the mark, as I've explained before.

As for my own will, yes, I do have that. Why else would I have to take up the "******** it, I'll do it anyway" mentality in the first place? There are things that I want to do for myself and they are things, by intention, will not harm others. Whether or not it actually works out that I will not harm others is the matter. I don't really see how my confusion here and desire not to hurt others would compromise my own convictions. As I said before, it's more of a probability thing on the consequentialist side of things, where I try to minimum amount of harm. And I've also mentioned that I wouldnot take it to the extreme that "anyone" is capable of sound moral judgment, so I'm not about to abide by their rules if I know it's going to harm more than benefit.

Really, I think I've explained my last two paragraphs in full detail in my previous reply so we'll move on.

Yes, I am confused. But I don't really see myself as lost as you seem to see me. The issue here is not so much "What is right and what is wrong?" I have a generally good sense of that. I am considerate of others, volunteer, support my friends, etc. I don't cause violence, steal, kill, etc. The issue here is "What gauge for right and wrong should I be using?" Does the consequentialist gauge actually work? It seems you're leaning more towards a duty theory of some sort.

And about God, I have a feeling that it answering it here will detract away from the original topic. If you start a new topic, I'll answer it there.

Once again, you've misunderstood. It's not so much that I don't believe in absolute truth. It's that I don't know whether or not exists, and if it does, how can I be sure that THAT is the absolute truth as opposed to something else?

"Moral compass" does seem to be more accurate about what I'm looking for, though. However, like in my first paragraph, I cannot tell whether or not spirituality is the way to go.