The wisdom of India simbolizes Ethics or dharma with a bull. As a bull has four legs, dharma rests on four fundamental principles: 1) veracity, 2) cleanness, 3) mercy or non-violence and 4) austerity.
I will not explain these principles in deep, because I would have to enter a certain point of view about certain questions, such as what happens with violence against animals... but I will try to go into certain fundamental pointsand I believe -I hope- that we all will be able to agree in those at least. And if it is not the case, as I said before, never mind, I just hope this is useful to your own Ethics. Here we go:
About the first, veracity, I have already written in "The 3 of the new Ethics...". There I apply the concept of veracity to the words, relations and actions, in the form of true knowledge (not false), sincere love (not dishonest) and correct action (not failed). Please read that post.
About the second, cleanness, I will explain in this ocassion, beyond exterior cleanness, which is good no doubt, the delicate issue of intentions.
Intentions only a Supreme Being could know them, that is for sure, so the cleanness starts by recognizing that nobody can know the true intentions of another person unless that person reveal them himself. So it is matter of each one´s consciousness (Ethics) to care for the cleanness of his own intentions.
The trully ethical intention means zero egoism: any action that I do with the intention of obtaining a benefit for myself is incorrect in its essence, it goes against the "ideal world" -of which we spoke in the previous post- because it puts the accent in reclaiming to others what they "owe to me" instead of concentrating my consciousness in what "I can do for the other". And to make things more complex, there exists the "extended egoism", which means to seek benefits for my afiliates, family, partners or friends.
All of this is perfectly analyzed by diverse true spiritual masters - or as I call them "life masters" and that is why I will not go deeper into, unless you ask me to in the commentaries.
The final word, then, is once more triple and one: desinterested word, desinterested love and desinterested action.
About mercy, in the first place we must distinguish between the different social responsabilities for diverse social roles. So a judge, he cannot be merciful. He cannot say: "this man killed the other really, but we are going to forgive him". No: he must condemn that man, as much as the law says.
For whoever is not a judge, he must not assume the functions of a judge. Mercy as the ability to return a non-violent action to a violent action, is the source of that happiness known as "peace". Answering violence with more violence only brings suffering (unless you are a type of judge). I have intelligent and experienced readers, so I dont need to probe this last asertion, which fundaments in the karma or action-reaction law.
Austerity refers to "accepting what you deserve" or in other words, each one must learn to live with that which is "his quote" or "his part". Any other conception is greediness. Greed means in the last instance the insatisfaction of a necessity and the concomitant desire of obtaining something that satisfy us. So what we must analyze is if what we feel as a necessity really is so, if it is ony a fancy, desire for something with no reason or with a reason that doesnt obey to a rationale of the utility of the object or relation in question for our life. The utilitarian principle must be then our guide. Of course then it arises a question: "useful for whom?"
This question is very complex. To start, the insatisfaction of necessities is at plain sight today, and we can say without fault that it is caused by a bad distribution of riches. Again, so my masters say. But by the other hand, it is also true that many times, when one gives opportunities to such needed people, they simply waste it, administering in the worst way which you give to them. I know what I am talking about. I have observed it and I have listened to many persons that have worked to better the lives of the poor and have seen the same.
So it seems that what we really have to distribute is a proper education. And that, dear readers, is what we are doing here: starting by teaching the teachers. Because at this time I know that not any person comes to read a blog of philosophy or Ethics, but those persons who have a genuine interest in leading others, such as philophers, psichologists, educators, social assitants, etc. That´s why I make this humble effort to share from what I know to potential social leaders, or true and already leaders.
Poor are poor because they dont know how to administrate. Even worst, many of them are proud, envious, with uncontroled senses and mind. All these things I have told you in previous posts, how a person with such chracteristics could´nt ever find peace or happiness in his life. Beware! I am not saying that all poor people is like this, that would be a form of discrimination; but I have seen because I have personal and other´s experience, that many are like this. I sincerely believe that we must do a scientific investigation about this aseverations of mine.
I will put it more clearly: Many rich men and medium class men have the same mentioned problems, except one: they know how to administrate in less or more extent. Then, the true difference is that the poor doesnt know how to administrate. Does it implies that by only teaching him how to administrate we solve the problem of poverty? NO: because there are still the other issues. In fact, the middle class man who has such characteristics as mentioned, can never better his situation, in fact he goes deeper and deeper into debts. And the sons of rich people they usually have this characteristics, specially because they had all for free, then they end up with all properties in mortgage... Is it so or not?
Then first the first: it is an urgent necessity to teach all people, all people, to be austere. Or in other words: 1) To know perfectly themselves, their likes and qualities; 2) each one must assume a social role and the concomitant responsabilities according to that self-knowledge; 3) Each one must determinate which are his true and real necessities, based on the social function that he assumed; 4) Each one must work his consciousness and being to be austere in the sense of accepting only what he needs and not a single grain in excess; 5) every one must be teached to correctly administrate his part...
I could go on enumerating, but I want to concentrate on point (4): It is because of this point that in previous posts I insisted in the necessity of each one having to search for his "life master" or "consciousness master". When I say this I mean: that there is a master for each one of us, he can be the same of another person, or different, that doesnt matter, recognizing such a master is a pending task in the life of each one of us at this moment of our re-evolution.
I cannot teach you, dear reader, what you need to learn in particular, but if you simply accept this search, I can assure you, you will find your "consciousness master", unique and non-repeatable, such as you are unique and non-repeatable.
(I still lack to explain why we must consider different social roles with different "quantities" of necessities. Here arises the roots of the problem of envy, which I mentioned before. Wanting to have what apparently makes happy another one -specially by imitating the "rich and powerful"- is a very dificult problem, with even worst repercutions, such as depopulation of rural areas and the urban misery... but that is a very concrete theme and it needs long debates, so I will not go into it. I will explain why in more detail soon.)