The Morality Of God

In Search Of An Ultimate Ethos

With each passing year science and philosophy continue to offer more rational and persuasive explanations suggesting the original force from which all existence springs may contain a distinctive intelligence. Those who’ve never doubted the existence of such a creative, thinking ultimate power have traditionally assigned such an entity a wide variety of different names.  The theistically inclined freely use the word “God” to personify this cognitive cosmic source.  Those more circumspect favor such titles as Initial Being, Ground of Being, Cosmic Awareness, Ultimate Intelligence, Essential Consciousness, The One, The All or dozens of other cautiously crafted appellations.  By any other name, the attributes we ascribe such a force show a predictable similarity.  For most, such an entity would be imbued with three core attributes: initial creative power, Ultimate intelligence and moral authority. While the implications of the existence of any of the above characteristics are unfathomably significant, we mere humans seem particularly obsessed with the morality issue.  After all, there’s little we can actually do about how we came to be or the qualities of our intelligence.  However, we feel a distinctive sense of immediacy and control regarding our ethical behavior.  Should such a grand entity exist we wonder about its intentions and desires.   What does it expect or demand of us, either collectively or individually?  What are we suppose to do and how are we to behave?  Does such an entity, either here or in the possible hereafter reward or punish us for our actions and attitudes?  In many ways establishing the rational existence of such an intelligent, creative force seems much easier than determining its wishes.  Predictably, many of varying ideological bends show little reluctance towards answering these questions.  In a world of great confusion there is no shortage of fervent ethical creeds.  However, those who ponder the moral demands of any ultimate intelligence may have likely side stepped the bigger question; assuming such an entity exists, does it possess an ethical dimension?  Is there within the Ultimate an intrinsic morality?  Does our very being contain an inherent ethos?  Such a distinction is critical towards properly understanding the object of our search.

For the rational and empirically inclined, the idea of an Ultimate consciousness creating and directing our existence as opposed to random, impersonal physical forces has long been consigned to the realm of belief.  This is changing.  Today the vigorous philosophical separation of an Ultimate Consciousness from religious dogma, numerous incidents of personal transcendent experience through a wide variety of mediums and the intriguing findings of modern physics offer many more credible scenarios for modern minds to postulate such possibilities.  However, though contemplating the presence of a singular consciousness from which all stem and remain an integral part is now more tenable the classic conception of such an entity as moral arbiter remains particularly nebulous. That all are subject to culturally based moral and behavioral standards to which we respond in varying ways is obvious.  The larger question is whether there exists any higher ethical code intrinsic to a creative universal intelligence beyond those established by any human societies?

That many believe in the existence of a higher morality dictated by an ultimate, creative intelligence is all too apparent.  Virtually every religious structure on earth is permeated with rules, codes, dictums and various “thou shalts” claimed to reflect the desires and morality of God, the Essential Consciousness, Cosmic Creator or whatever your favorite moniker.  Such a higher power not only dictates the rules but acts as both judge and executioner regarding our levels of compliance.  Of course belief in such an ultimate moral scheme is not confined to the hoarier traditions of our history.  Many of no established theological allegiance feel there’s a prevailing, universal ethos at work effecting all regardless of any association.  Humanists, feminists, environmentalists, panpsychists, alienists, animal liberationists, 2012ists and cultists of every stripe, it matters not.  Any psychological or social orientation may breezily draw and justify its own ethical priorities through its perception and interpretation of an Ultimate authority.  However, fervent conviction is at best an ambiguous quality for divorcing any morality from its cultural moorings and linking it to the will of any higher intelligence.

There is considerable psychological and philosophical material suggesting the existence of an Ultimate Consciousness and how it may function.  However, these same disciplines have little to credibly say on the presence or nature of any ethos inherent within such a possibility.  In this case the “what” is clearly easier to fathom than the “why.”  Establishing a defensible explanation for the presence of an intelligent creative force by itself does nothing to expose or verify the existence or qualities of any attendant moral code.  To assume any cosmic intelligence inherently possesses a relatable ethos of human behavior because of its formidable design capacities remains a titanic leap of reason.  While there may be no intrinsic relationship of existence to intention, coupling available fact with reason may allow an exploration of this question in a less speculative and more rational manner.

To most anthropologists the possibility of a higher ethical dimension to existence seems of little to no consequence.  Prevailing cultural theory holds human morality, in all its diverse manifestations, to be the result of clearly identifiable historic, social and material factors.  Such a paradigm explains the variations and mutations of behavior found throughout the planet.  Most are leery of the existence of any such grandiose quality as a global ethic much less any ultimate one.  As any such metaphysical possibilities likely lie outside the realm of their expertise, rare is the ethnologist who considers the possibility of cultural behavior authentically stemming from an absolute intelligence.  Personal theistic proclivities notwithstanding, any such beliefs in an ethos of existence are treated as situational curiosities whose explanations lie within more tellurian specifics.  And they may be right.  Recognizing those external cultural factors underlying human ethical systems is crucial.  However, just as important is understanding the many cultural reasons underlying the belief in an Ultimate ethos.  Is there anything within any of these traditions and practices that seems to argue for or verify the presence of a morality of the Ultimate, an ethos beyond human authority?  If so, how would it be recognized and what would the specifics of such a higher ethical code be?  Is there a rational argument grounded within a wider cultural perspective that may more persuasively make this case?

Almost every earthly society claims their conception of the creative power of existence to have an ethical dimension. Those behavioral directives deigned to originate from any Ultimate intelligence have their roots in the obscure realm of cultural antiquity.  Deep within the distant past some credible source (ruler, prophet, shaman, elder, etc.) claimed to have mystically encountered the greater power of existence who imparted to them its rules and rituals.  The validity of these essential prescriptions is necessarily reinforced through their continued efficacy.  In other words, in the minds of their adherents they serve a practical purpose.  Fortunately for all concerned (and of great comfort to materialists everywhere) these prescribed practices are never at odds with the current survival strategies of any given society.   The wishes of God or the Ultimate are always neatly and pragmatically enfolded within those laws and dictums necessary for the harmonious existence of the community and vice verse.  Unheard of is an ethos running contrary to the cumulative material interests of any culture.  Though many may claim these dictums are respected by dint of their divine authority all usually survive, or not, based on issues of their continued practicality.   And there’s the rub.  It’s curious to note how many aspects of any reputed Ultimate ethos have been prone to modification in response to changing material, social or geographic factors.  While the actual ethical pronouncements themselves, whether remembered, written or carved in stone may never change their applications are continually subject to a great deal of human interpretation.

This necessary relationship between codes of behavior and the culturally pragmatic makes it extremely difficult to clearly attribute the origin of any moral inspiration to any type of higher, more essential force.   Even if such an ethic were to stem from beyond society how would we ever know?  In what verifiable way would an Ultimate ethos reveal its source?  Fortunately, such criterion exists.  Within any Ultimate ethos the higher power not only defines the proper behavior but judges it as well.  It could be no other way.   Any ethos without authority becomes mere suggestion.  Without consequences to our actions, either in this life or a possible next, there’s little impetus to do one thing instead of another.  If clear rewards or punishments beyond the capacity of human beings could be linked to particular actions we would certainly have a better basis for determining the existence and character of a higher ethic.  Under such circumstances we may be able to tell whether some essential power or consciousness beyond society were sanctioning or condemning specific human behavior.

The judgmental qualities of society regarding any particular action are relatively easy to identify; admiration, respect, monuments, scorn, ostracism, jail, etc.  Such rewards or punishments are clearly within the sphere of human capability.  Conversely, the judgments of any creative intelligence are reputed to be of a wholly different nature and clearly transcend the abilities of human arbiters.  The list of possible Ultimate responses to human behavior is as long as it is legendary and may play out within either the immediate physical realm or higher metaphysical dimensions.  Answering (or not) the prayers of humans and the direct intervention (or not) of spirits into human affairs are examples of the Ultimate power operating on the physical level.  Consignments to heaven or to hell, determining one’s reincarnation status and the business of karmic retribution would be Ultimate assessments occurring on transcendent planes of existence.  Unfortunately, as is immediately apparent, identifying those consequences of behavior clearly beyond the dispensation of human beings can be quite tricky.  While the limits of human physical ability are well known, the capacity to clearly recognize instances of any metaphysical power is fraught with caveats.  If only all displays of higher judgment were as conspicuously dramatic as parting seas, blinding celestial lights and salt stained sinners.  But they aren’t.  Our ability to identify any transcendent judgment is usually hampered by a number of problems.

Contrary to our desires, Ultimate judgment could just as likely involve inaction.  Though we may ask, pray or propitiate for a desired result the Ultimate may not agree with our perceptions of worthiness and our pleadings go deliberately unfulfilled.  In such a case there is no supernatural phenomenon or effect to evaluate.  Nothing has changed.   For whatever reason, Ultimate consciousness has exercised its judgment by declining to act.  Such lack of perceptible result provides nothing from which to affirm or deny an active ethos within the creative consciousness.  We could never know what happened.  However, sometimes certain prayed for results do occur: the rains come, a loved one is healed a dear wish granted.  Can one then assume such reward confirms a link between a certain behavior and the sensibilities of a higher power?  If only it were that easy.  Our ability to clearly link physical result to supernatural agency would still remain problematic.  The issue of certainty regarding who or what was actually responsible for any perceived result is never easily resolved.  As the ethical judgments of transcendent powers rarely come with narratives of explanation we can only speculate.  The individual or resident mystical authority may ascribe or rationalize the agency behind a propitious or disastrous series of events but who can ever be sure?  Did the rains come because of the relative virtue of one’s behavior or because of indifferent external climatic factors interacting within the atmosphere?  Is the recovery of a family member from disease related to the degree of diligent compliance to the ethic of a higher power or the natural result of biological processes?  Who can say?  Can we even be sure certain established meteorological and medical truths are unrelated to Ultimate intervention?

Further complicating the issue is the definition of what exactly constitutes a good or bad result.  The final determinant of the result of any apparent reward or punishment may not always be clearly known.  How are we to accurately evaluate the consequences of any incident without the benefit of time and broader context?  Is the forced migration of a village off their traditional lands because of a change in animal movements a bad thing if they end up in an area more hospitable to their long term interests?  How would one ethically evaluate the possible murder of Hitler or any other future tyrant as a child?  Like Midas’s boon from Dionysus, many times what seems a reward ends up a punishment and vice versa.

Perhaps the thorniest of all agency problems involves Ultimate judgments possibly occurring in realms beyond our perception.  Questions of reward and punishment within our corporeal lives, difficult as they may be to practically evaluate, may at least be empirically assessed.  More problematic are those afterlife ethical judgments purported to occur in the metaphysical realm.  By definition the metaphysical is an area beyond ordinary sense perception.  What happens in this region, so convention holds, is inarguably beyond the scope of human control.  Most believe this is where our corporeal behaviors are subjected to their most profound and enduring reckoning.  Not surprisingly, the specifics of consequence in this realm are open to a wide degree of speculation and conviction.  Some claim the metaphysical judgment of the Ultimate to be eternal in nature.  They assert timeless consignment to such places as heaven, hell, nirvana, ancestral paradise, limbo or any other such cultural variants to be the enduring consequences of our earthly behavior.  Others believe in more transient types of Ultimate metaphysical assessment such as in cases of possible reincarnation.  Then there is the issue of behavioral cause and effect most widely known as karma.  While karmic consequences are commonly associated with the afterlife and reincarnation a great deal of this phenomenon (though claimed to be continually judged by higher forces) plays out on our earthly stage on a daily basis.

Though lodged in different particulars, determining the presence of a higher ethical arbiter within any metaphysical dimension is virtually impossible.  No purported aspect of Ultimate action is immune to our questions.  To begin with, how can we be sure such otherworldly realms exist, or if they do, what other possible processes may occur within and around them.  Even if we could confirm the existence of such alternate dimensions of existence how do we know this is an area in which any Ultimate intelligence may be flexing its judgmental muscles?  Does the process of reincarnation even happen?  Should reincarnation be a reality how are we to evaluate its operation?  Who knows who’s been awarded a favorable rebirth in return for their virtue as opposed to that of a dung beetle as penance for their sins?  Can we even be sure incarnation as a dung beetle is a punishment or reward?  Even if we could recognize such transcendent phenomena do we have the insight to properly extrapolate, contextualize and understand any ethical imperatives from what we perceive?  And on and on into the proverbial dark nights of our souls it goes.

It’s important to note all of the above uncertainties are only relative from an empirical perspective.  All stem from our inability to perceptibly link cause to effect, or physically confirm or access any alternate dimensions of existence.  Herein lies a problem.  Many may legitimately claim empirical assessment by itself to be wholly insufficient to the task of investigating such possible incidences of Ultimate judgment.  They may assert the necessity of employing other, different modes of perception and understanding more productive to accessing a topic of such obvious complexity.  And they would be right.  Those who would uniformly discount the integrity of intuition, psychic impression, altered mental states or mystical contact as avenues of understanding do so at their own peril.  There is a great deal of rational argument supporting the viability of these non-empirical methods of acquiring information.  However, even if such subjective methods of perception could confirm the existence of intelligence based metaphysical forces and alternate dimensions of being (something readily acknowledged by many main stream researchers) any evaluation of the exercise of an Ultimate ethos would continue to be stymied by our confusion of cause and interpretation.

For the moment let’s suspend any doubt or discretion.  Let’s assume specific occurrences within our experience reveal there to indeed be metaphysical forces demanding of and sensitive to our ethical behavior, influenced by prayer, facilitating reincarnation and responsive to karmic agency.  No matter how concrete or predictable the relationship between human action and metaphysical result we would still be uncertain about the causative entity or process responsible for such events.  Unfortunately, any consistent connection between reward/punishment and moral/immoral behavior by itself does nothing to establish the existence of a higher, essential intelligence much less an Ultimate ethos.  What we may attribute as the will of the Ultimate may be tied to other elements and forces of existence not yet known or understood.  For example, shamanic ritual or prayer may contend to be harnessing the will of Being/God/Ancestors but could actually be accessing other, more prosaic, ethically neutral psychic energies within existence.  The transmutation of souls or reincarnation (of which there is a large intriguing body of work) may have nothing to do with Ultimate judgments as opposed to the reciprocating qualities of other more pedestrian physical forces devoid of any intention such as the Zero Point Field, the theorized Akashic or morphogenic fields or any other currently unrecognized energy sources.    Possible unknown physical phenomena are only part of our confusion.  Equally relevant could be issues peculiar to our own psychology.

The law of karma (the behavioral principle of cause and effect) is simultaneously one of the most frequently cited proofs of the existence of a higher, unseen ethic and one of the most perplexing.  Karmic action is unique as it purportedly may occur in either a metaphysical realm or within the course of our tellurian lives.  Karmic consequence after death has always enjoyed a higher theoretical credibility because much within the physical world seems to validate the concept.  Virtually all of us have been either culturally or theologically inculcated to believe we reap what we sow.  The idea is an easy sell because there is plentiful observation to suggest it may be true.  How often do we marvel at the predictable and ironic qualities of “payback” associated with certain behavior?  We find ourselves pondering what conscious force is evaluating the nature of our actions and tapering those lurking rewards or punishments to the nature of our deeds.  However, the existence of such an observable relation of action to consequence by itself does nothing to affirm the presence of an Ultimate ethical order.

It’s quite conceivable what we perceive as a moral dimension to karma is rather an example of psychologically rooted laws of attraction.  As most can attest, the qualities of our actions usually predispose others to treat us in like fashion.  Kindness begets kindness as surely as hostility breeds the same.  Such reciprocation may operate in conjunction with what we may label ethical issues but says nothing about the presence of a judge who directs these effects based on its own morality.  It’s possible karma may have its own inertia independent of our (or any other entities) concepts of right or wrong.  We must also acknowledge the possibility that what appears to be karmic function may have an explanation within the core of our own individual psyches.  Many a psychologist has noted the human ability to reward or punish themselves for their behavior.  They contend we subconsciously program and manipulate ourselves to experience certain results based on deeply rooted psychological intentions, desires and patterns of expectation. The same may be said for reincarnations.  People may be drawn to particular incarnations that seem complimentary for reasons we can never know.  Pondering such possibilities is much more than mere word play or an exercise in radical skepticism.  It should be noted that Buddhists and Jains among many others ascribe to the notion of karma and reincarnation but don’t believe in the existence of a god or supreme force.  They feel such an entity isn’t necessary to explain the workings of the universe or any equilibrium associated with behavior.

Any effort to deduce or confirm the presence of an Ultimate ethic based on the factors cited above will always be an uncertain exercise.  However, there remains one enticing line of argument frequently employed to support the theorized existence of such a higher, universal creed: Perennialism.  Though receiving its most conspicuous treatment in the work of Aldous Huxley, the underlying tenants of Perennialism have been noted and commented upon for centuries.  Perennialism basically asserts there to be certain core philosophical and theological concepts inherent within all religious traditions independent of any cultural or epochal context. While the myths, legends and mystical particulars may differ from one spiritual school to the next, when stripped of their cultural and material trappings all reveal the same essential perspective of existence.  The implication is any such universally held perspectives by their nature transcend material and social influences and therefore must be viewed as reflecting a higher, more archetypal truth.  Much of the work done in comparative religion, psychology and anthropology strongly suggests there may be much to validate the assertions of the Perennialist school.

The key similarities Perennialists consistently note within all spiritual systems are as follows: the world of matter and consciousness is the manifestation of a singular grand consciousness which can be known to us through intuition and reason, humans are simultaneously composed of both a phenomenal ego and an eternal soul and our grand purpose is to recognize our fundamental nature and through the process come to know the unitive nature of the Divine.  Obviously any competent discussion of Perennialism would require a degree of resource and investigation far beyond the confines of this piece.  However, grand interpretive leaps are not necessary to recognize many of the above noted perspectives lurking within the spiritual structures of virtually every culture.  Nor would it be unreasonable to treat the presence of such consistencies as a common psychological heritage of which all humans seem innately aware.  Unfortunately, those tempted to treat Perennialism as the Rosetta Stone of ethical behavior need to appreciate and accommodate certain nagging specifics.  Those highly vaunted universal perspectives so intriguing to the Perennialists directly relate to philosophical insights addressing the nature of reality and consciousness.  From an ontological or phenomenological perspective they are engaging but would seem empty of any suggestion regarding the nature or predispositions of an Ultimate consciousness.  They remain highly abstract and of themselves don’t speak to specific human behavior.  Those who attempt to extrapolate ethical specifics from such fundamental existential truths will quickly discover a lack of indisputable grounding from which to proceed.  As the prescriptions and prohibitions of any society embracing these tenants clearly demonstrate, how we react to or sanction any such immutable transcendent truths may be expressed in a myriad of different fashions all individually or culturally determined.  Even such widely condemned or lauded actions as indifferent murder or charity can’t be logically located within such an overarching perspective.  As with all things, the devil is within the details.

If a Universal ethos can’t be rationalized or confirmed through the probing of the culturally insulated realm of our innate psyches it would seem there is nowhere else to turn.  It would appear no aspect of our lives, psychologies, allegiances or history may serve as a source of unambiguous certainty regarding the existence or qualities of a Universal ethos.  No degree of conviction, utilitarian value or sense of profundity is capable of revealing a clear link between any human behavior and any desire within an Ultimate source of consciousness.  This is not to suggest that ethical dictums of any kind are devoid of substantial value.  Every dimension of our lives is better structured through the practice of certain situational rules of behavior.  I dare suggest even our own personal spiritual development may be more effectively advanced through the observance of specific ethical practices.  Such traditional recommendations as non violence, truth, temperance and charity would seem advisable should one wish to create the complimentary circumstances through which a higher awareness may be achieved.  However, it’s important to realize the distinction between spiritual values and ultimate ethical values; values of context versus values absolutely defined.

Of course not all feel moral authority is an inherent quality within any Ultimate consciousness. Perhaps the Deists have it right when suggesting God sets existence in motion and then steps back and lets things run their course.  Many of the eastern traditions believe the Absolute is not in the business of dictating ethics.  It’s involvement with human behavior is purely as a neutral arbiter whose sole role is to assure the operation of karma.   In truth, many physicists and cosmologists are reluctant to acknowledge the possibility of any intelligence or awareness within the creative impulse of existence much less any further dimension such as an ethical structure.  To them such characteristics are speculative reaching far beyond the only apparent fact: there is by necessity an origin of existence.  Despite such lack of proof, many of these same materialists appreciate the veracity of certain arguments in which such a source may indeed be possessed of intelligence and design capability.  However, in light of available evidence and reason, none of these scientific skeptics feel it necessary to ascribe such an infinitely powerful, possibly intelligent entity an inherent set of moral imperatives.

This is certainly not to assert such an ethos can’t or doesn’t exist but rather to illuminate our inability to confirm the specifics of any such possibility.  Still, many claim should an Ultimate creative force possess intelligence a moral dimension is a logical necessity.  They note any intelligence with demonstrable design capabilities requires a quality of intention.  Unless Ultimate consciousness created existence for its own amusement (the pleasure of “watching it spin”) or to conduct some sort of elaborate laboratory experiment there must be a conceived intention or purpose.  As such, certain requirements (or actions) must occur in order for any intended result to be realized and sustained.  They claim as individual pieces within a grand scheme it is incumbent on each of us to perform our designated role.  Though this may be a reasonable observation it does little to extricate us from the same familiar quandary; our inability to unambiguously discern and define such Ultimate intentions leaves us clueless as to how to proceed.  Any inspirations or theories we hold as to how we must behave remain speculative.  Any will or desire we possess to act in accordance with any Ultimate intention is inevitably thwarted by our lack of knowledge and understanding.  To the great chagrin of many seeking higher direction it seems evident there is no objective or argumentatively persuasive manner by which to assert a specific and relatable ethical dimension within any Ultimate source of existence.

Under such circumstances of uncertainty some imagine the possibility of an alternate scenario.  They wonder if perhaps the Ultimate Consciousness, The One, The All, God, the Initial Being, the Essential Intelligence or whatever you choose has less of an ethos and more of a plan.  To search for an ethos is to believe ourselves capable of choosing one form of behavior over another.  It presupposes an ability to either compliment or deviate from the intentions of the Ultimate Consciousness.  For such fragile creatures of limited perspective this would seem a stupefying degree of hubris.  If there is a design or plan within any Ultimate consciousness how could we mere humans act contrary to its intentions.  How could we possibly usurp for ourselves the power to stray from the Ultimate scheme?  Unless our existence is nothing more than the above noted source of amusement or grand experiment we exist for an intended purpose; the purpose of the creative intelligence.  They claim it unlikely that anything the Ultimate requires of us to perform could be left to our own sensibilities.  How can the Ultimate trust the fate and balance of its creation to the hope we flawed humans do what we’re intended through our own volition?  What happens if we make the wrong decision and do the wrong thing?  Will the calculated string of existential causality snag and pervert the fabric of Ultimate design?   Do we really presuppose we have the ability to thwart the will of the Ultimate through our own actions?  Under this scenario it’s more likely all of us are merely the hapless tools of an Ultimate intelligence that ensures we perform our necessary life functions for purposes as yet unknown. Obviously, such an arrangement guts any conventional notion of the existence of free will.  However, on the brighter side it simultaneously insures none can do real wrong.

Understandably, many have problems with any existential scenario devoid of an ethical dimension.  However, from a practical standpoint they need not worry.  Regardless of whatever forces compel human behavior, be it the all controlling hand of the Ultimate, pure individual volition or any combination of the two, ethical imperatives are an inescapable aspect of our existence.  That such dictums may not carry a recognizable Ultimate imprimatur does little to diminish their necessity for social order and control.   Regardless of any possible intrinsic moral character Ultimate intelligence may possess we humans will continue to design and implement ethical structures reflective of the more immediate priorities and sensibilities of our given societies.  Order and structure, whether imposed from above or below remains a critical dimension of our continued corporeal existence.  What’s most important to recognize is the source and rational underlying any given ethical system.  Failure to do so has often led to universalizing or aggrandizing certain particular moral systems over others and stumbling into the often times chaotic and tragic consequences such confusion may breed.   Again, this is not to assert there is no ethical dimension to any Ultimate intelligence but rather to acknowledge the more immediate value of those ethics drawn from and oriented to human social circumstances and to question and challenge any who would claim otherwise.

Our desire to better know our place and role within existence is natural and commendable.  Perhaps our inability to recognize any Ultimate ethos, should one exist, is not the dire predicament many believe. One may reasonably wonder of what real value is an ethic of the Ultimate if all are fated to live among the creatures and creations of our physical world?  Under such circumstances wouldn’t the greatest ethical imperative be honoring what we perceive to be the crucial issues of our immediate surroundings rather than the unknown and unfathomable issues of existence?  Knowing our limitations of intellect and understanding what else could any Ultimate consciousness expect from us?  I suspect we don’t really need to hear the words of the Ultimate intelligence to know the specifics of the highest ethical path.  Consequently, I also suspect the greatest ethical challenges most face are issues of will rather than ignorance.  As creatures of the same universal consciousness it seems likely we are already innately aware of the proper ethical course.  Those convinced of the reality of any Ultimate intelligence understand that everything that exists is the intention and creation of that singular consciousness which endowed their very being.  As such we must follow an ethos oriented to the equal concerns of people, animals, plants and the very elements of the environment we all cohabit.  I doubt any Ultimate power would condone pursuing a higher moral path whose specifics were contrary to the interests and respect necessary for the flourishing of its consciously created entities.  But most importantly, if Ultimate intelligence possesses any of the powers we commonly ascribe surely it’s capable of taking care of itself regardless of our actions.  And under those same circumstances wouldn’t it ultimately take care of us and place us firmly within our own eternal destinies regardless of what cosmically trivial actions we exercise within the infinitesimally brief span of our physical lives?


Tags: , , ,


  1. CommentsTed Leger   |  Sunday, 06 April 2014 at 8:30 pm

    If destiny was real, why do we even worry about wearing seatbelts? Why not just do what you want and not worry about the conscequences? If you are destined to die on a certain time and day, why would you worry about anything at all?

  2. CommentsCalmHub   |  Friday, 13 June 2014 at 1:12 am

    That is a good point about destiny that Ted Leger made. Why would you worry about anything if destiny was real? If you were determined to die, say next month, then that means you can do whatever you want until then and not perish. That simply isn’t the case.

Leave a Reply


Subscribe without commenting

Home / The Morality Of God