The ideal program would be one that allows the heart to experience and
see everything it confronts non-nondiscriminatory. It therefore does not
matter whether we see that experience leading to any of the three basic
requirements or not because we can inflict these upon ourselves if we
choose so any way. What matter is that we derive an experience of what
we confront and a challenging one.
In trying to compare the di-ethics with other ethical theories we will
first analyze the
ethics of theism-beliefs in one God.
But first we must ask our selves, why the
value of ethics? Why is
belief and faith an important element of human life. Common Ethics tell
us that we must believe in what is right and what is good and that in
the end the righteous will win. But why this baser assumption that what
is right is always clear and that what is good is always what is right.
Further more the assumption goes on to say that the righteous will win
in the end and justice will prevail. These basic beliefs are the
cornerstone of theistic beliefs, our current formal judiciary systems
and perhaps our own individual internal beliefs that we posses at
birth. But note that these are merely assumptions and no conclusive
evidence exists to suggest that what is good is always right, what is
right is always clear and that what is good will prevail in the end.
Note that in di-theory our ethics are based on logically inferred or
empirically evidenced phenomenon and we must therefore not as yet seek
to adopt any of these dogmas despite every temptation until we have
critically analyzed them. We have already experienced many cases where
good does not prevail in the end and what we call evil becomes the
winner. In fact winning is usually in the hands of those that posses
the power who are not always necessarily good. We have also seen cases
where good turns into evil and back into good again, so why should we
draw a definite line between good and evil or right and wrong when they
can change any time depending on from where you are looking.
Jesus’ teaching posses a common message. If you want to enter the
kingdom of
heaven and experience eternal happiness, carry your cross,
accept the burdens of present life on
earth and give
happiness to
others. Do to them what you would have them do to you.
Note that these messages bear a common assumption. That you want
eternal life and happiness, that you must embrace the suffering on this
earth to achieve it and that in so doing you will be able to pass on
happiness to others here on earth. But if happiness on earth is of no
value to us, then why should it be of value to anyone else? From his
teachings I believe that the greatest gift one can give another is not
life or happiness on this earth but rather eternal life and happiness
in heaven for it is this that we all long for. If we chose to believe
that we are behaving in a righteous way because we give people life and
happiness on earth so that we can have ours eternally in heaven, I
believe that we would be cheating them. Instead of forfeiting our life
and happiness on earth so that others can have it on earth when it is
this very life that we should not value, why don’t we forfeit our life
and happiness in heaven that we
truly value and that others can truly
enjoy eternally. And yet no where does anyone suggest this as a remedy
for redemption. Why should we as humans expect anything in return for
the good that we do whether on earth or in heaven when we claim that it
is what we truly want? Why don’t we just do good because it is what is
right despite having to burn in eternal fire for doing so if we truly
believe in what is right? .. Continued
More summaries about the ditheory ethical model2