What is 'Truth', 'Moral', and 'Sacred'?

(Assignment from a Learning Circle)

Truth, Sacred, and Moral are words that are not easily defined. Much of their definition is based upon a person's own benchmarks (what they have learned, what they have experienced, what their society's definitions are). A person's benchmarks are what they compare an item, event, or belief against.

Truth is best defined as the way things are, or the way an individual perceives things to be (perceived "reality"). For example, gravity is truth to us here on this planet. But if there are any life forms on other planets, then, for those that have no gravity, gravity is a fiction. For those who live on planets where gravity is stronger or lighter, their definition of truth may be slightly different (the truth may be that gravity is there, but it's easily overcome).

Sacred is best defined as any thing that is important to us, even if we aren't quite sure why they are important. These are the things that we display with pride and reverence, the things that we respect, the things that teach us, and even the things that we guard. For some, this includes money -- money is the sacred thing that they guard and revere.

Moral is best defined as actions, words, etc., that are "right" according to our individual benchmarks. This includes the way a person should act, according to his or her own (or their society's) beliefs.

My own personal benchmarks for what is sacred, true, and moral may be very different than the next person's benchmarks. For me, much of what is sacred revolves around the "natural" world. The wind, the woods, animals of all kinds, rocks, storms, and rivers are all sacred to me. I also consider winged lions, words of wisdom, poems, and drawings by my children as sacred.

For me, moral means helping others and doing no harm (or doing minimal harm, to advance the greater good). And truth involves taking responsibility when things go wrong, saying I'm sorry, admitting when you don't know something, answering with the way things really are (or at the least, the way that you perceive them to be).

All of these definitions help answer the question, "Are there any acts that are inherently evil?" Basically, any act that harms others and does not benefit the greater good could be classified as evil. While evil acts vary in "shades" depending on the individual's benchmarks (such as, to some, there will never be any excuse for abortion-- it is inherently evil and inexcusable to them), there are some general acts that most people would consider evil. Most people would consider mass murder evil (such as walking into a local restaurant and shooting as many people as possible). What these acts-- acts that virtually everyone would consider evil-- have in common is that they harm many without benefiting anyone (not even the murderer-- they either die or go to prison). How individuals and societies differ, however, is how they define the mitigating circumstances (using, of course, their societal or personal benchmarks). In one society, it may only be acceptable to kill someone if they were chronically ill and suffering. In another, it may be acceptable to kill someone for stealing from you (but not acceptable to kill someone in an argument). It all depends on how the society defines its mitigating circumstances.

All of the above proves that there are no "black and white" issues. Just as those issues that are "wrong" to someone could have mitigated circumstances that would make them "right," the very definitions of truth, sacred, and moral are not black and white. The definitions vary among societies, cultures, and individuals.

Use the navigation menu at the left to visit the other pages in this section.

All pages, format, images and content are ©2004 Windlistener NiMorrigan (or copyright original owner, where applicable).
Do not copy without permission.