Do you teach a moral code?

[KenpoKev]

As an instructor, do you feel it is important or appropriate to teach moral aspects of the martial arts or any form of the spiritual basis that is found in some styles?

[Gordon Nore]

Good question, Kenpo Kev:

My Senseis do not teach a code as such, but we have three expectations of our kids:

"You use your martial arts under the following conditions:

You may practise in this or another dojo under the supervision of an instructor
You may practise at home, with the permission of your parent or a responsible adult
You may use our martial arts to defend yoursefl, BUT you must discuss with your parent/guardian about when this is OK"


As for the adults, our Sensei keep an eagle-eye out for those who are simply looking to bust heads. That's about it.

[Jeff Burger]

I definately stay away from spiritual in class. I have had people leave Tai Chi because they say meditating would be against their religion.
Morals and ethic are topics we will discuss as they come up. Often via role playing,situations,media topics and so on.
I try to remain neutral on many subjects and not give my personal or political views.

JMB

[Sochin]

No matter what is written on the wall, a teacher imparts his own moral code all the time. It may re-inforce the organization's morality or deny it but it will be there.

At the same time, the students will be trying out their own approach to morality, practicing different things and watching carefuly what their "heroes" are "doing" as well as "saying."

Our international sensei is very open that he teaches martial arts so he will have access to focused and interested people who will listen to his religious understanding of the nature of reality. He has never come close to changing my religious convictions.

I am very open with my students, telling them, "You think I am here to teach you how to fight, but I'm really using this to teach you how to have a happier more fulfiling life by becoming self aware, self evaluating, and self correcting. and learning the benefits of an indominatable spirit."

So, yes I teach morality but I teach musch less religion.

[Joe D]

Kev,

This is something my TKD instructor wrote back in the late seventies. We give a copy to all new students and make reference to it fairly regularly--especially for the kids. I have never had a parent or student feel that this is contradictory to one's religous beliefs.

As students of TSAA, we vow to:

Respect the rights of others
Never look for a reason to test our skills
Apply what we learn here to improve ourselves
Remove the words "I CAN'T" from our vocabulary
Apply what we learn here to help others
Learn something new everyday


Our teachings apply to everday life, and, as such, we will strive to improve our daily lives by the application of these teachings. Breathing, mind-clearing, and concentration will help us in school, at work, and at home. Showing disrepect or intolerance to others outside the dojang is the same as showing disrespect for TSAA and its instructors. Being strong fighters may someday save our lives, but we also understand that improving our mental abilities is even more important than developing our physiacl abilities: We would rather shake a person'e hand and thereby make a friend than hurt someone physically and have to live with memory. We will only use our skills as a last resort, and only to the degree necessary to diffuse the situation. We will practice faithfully, at home as well as at the dojang, and continually strive to improve. We will never be satisfied that we have improved enough, but we will always be proud of our achievements.

WRT Aikido, we don't mention the spiritual stuff--that is entirely up to the individual.
Morally, much of the above applies. This is probably for another thread but, in my opinion, too many of these aikidoka, try to make a religion out of the art.

Just my two cents.
Take care
Joe Diaco

[Jeff Burger]

This brings up another/extended topic...dating within the school.
Personally I dont date students or their moms/aunts whatever.
As I mentioned elsewhere I work with alot of kids from single parent homes. So I get some moms...thinking hmm single,good with my kid,a job.(Id like to personally ad good looking, smart and charming to my already obvious humbleness...lol).But I try to shut down any vibes or advances
If I have a girlfriend and she wants to do classes thats different.
I cant control(at least I feel it would not be right to say no dating fellow students) students dating though I frown upon it.

JMB

[Joe D]

Excellent point wrt to teaching by example Mr. Hackworth. I have heard instructors from other schools make comments like the one in your post wrt "the look"--shameful behavior.


I live in NJ, just last year, some bozo instructor from an Amerikick school was caught sleeping with his 15 year old student. A few other girls came forward in the aftermath. What a sick *&#$!!.

Joe Diaco

[Col.bron]

I probably differ to most as the art I study is Shorinji Kempo. This is a reregistered religion in Japan. While it does have a more structured approach to it’s philosophy than most arts, and in fact for each grading you will be required to write essays on a range of topics, I have not found anyone that finds it’s teachings incompatible with their own beliefs. It is more like a life style philosophy than a religion. Sometimes people are offended by the Manji that we use, but this is mainly through ignorance of it’s meaning.

However there would be some people that will not start SK because they only want to learn self defence. I could not feel comfortable with teaching without a moral code, and without having some way to get people to think more deeply on the value of budo. Once I have taught something I can’t take it back, so it’s important to me to have confidence in my students character.

Cheers
Colin Linz

[kaad77]

do u think its right to have to learn all the stances, kicks, punches and blocks in its native language like TKD and korean.

[Col.bron]

Kaad77,

Everything I learn is in Japanese. The practical reason for this is that the World Shorinji Kempo Organisation is a large international one. My membership with them allows me to train with any other SK club in the world. By keeping to the one language every one knows what the techniques are.

As it’s a Japanese art, with its headquarters in Japan, and many of the best practitioners and teachers Japanese, many of whom don’t speak english, or indeed other languages that are in use through out the world. Japanese seems a sensible language to use. I can train anywhere in the world and know what's happening in the class. I have been to our headquarters in Japan twice. If I only understood the techniques in English it would be very difficult.

A less practical, but still important reason for me is the insight to a different culture. Understanding each other is a corner stone in the practice of Budo. Budo meaning to stop conflict. I have seen other arts that don’t have the same international network that SK has using a parent language. I believe they continue the use of a parent language as a mark of respect for their arts origin.

Cheers
Colin

[TonerSensei]

In regards to the question of moral instruction. I feel this is an absolute must for a martial arts instructor. My very first teacher told me:

"teaching someone the physical skills and techniques of martial arts, without the mental discipline and moral traditions, is the same as handing a child a loaded gun."

I must say I still agree wholeheartedly with him. One thing I think that scares people is that they confuse RELIGION with MORALS. The two are not necessarily the same thing, although they can be intertwined. As a Sensei you can pass on to a student the rich culture and traditions of martial practise without asking them to change their beliefs, religious affiliations, etc.
When we talk about teaching morals, I think what we should be focussing on is the balance of mind and body, and the basic principles of ethics, not some religious ceremony or ritual.

I know if someone came to my school and said, "Show me how to fight but I'm not interested in all that mental stuff," I would quickly show them the door. I would not feel comfortable teaching only half an art.

Sensei David Toner
Pacific Budokan

[Jeff Burger]

Moral code is a part of martial arts history...but...(forget where I saw this)martial arts instructors are qualified to teach martial arts...not give personal advice

JMB

[LanceWildcat1]

I can't see teaching the MA's without teaching moral and ethical value's to go along with the physical side of the MA's. Teaching the MA's to someone who has no moral or ethical value's is like putting a loaded gun in the hands of a child. You are only going to see grief come of it.

[Jeff Burger]

True but there is a line between general responsibilty and and giving personal advice.
I have seen instructors act like therapist.


JMB

[De_Franza]

I'm not an instructor (4th kyu now, 3 years training) so here's an opinion from a student who reads a lot about MA.

I feel that some sort of morals are and should be passed to the students. Certainly, children should be instructed to not become bullys, etc. And leadership by example is always the strongest teaching.

It's true IMHO that people often confuse morals with religion, and using the shield of religion, fail to see the hypocrisy in their morals, or lack thereof. Not everyone, of course, I mean like father Geoghan types. Those of us who are not religious can be and are moral.

I also feel that religion belongs in a religious place and MA belong in a MA place. What I'm saying is that for me, I would not train at a religious Dojo; I feel that's inappropriate. I also wouldn't do kata in a church or wear a gi to a funeral. That would obviously be inappropriate.

Basically, I believe appropriate or (dare I use the loaded term) Right Behavior is what to teach a MA student, and to examine oneself (if one is an instructor) to see that we follow it ourselves. I'm always excited when new students join because I see it as a yardstick to measure myself against, and feel obliged to set a good example on the mat, and off too, if needed.

So I suppose a good self-check would be to say, "Would I want to be responsible for my students behaving this way?" and if the answer is No, than not do it. (I guess that's like parenting, not one of those yet either).

I also believe MA Teachers should equip their students of any age with a good way to decide when to use their martial skills, and explain the consequences of doing so (feelings of guilt, enjoyment and/or legal ramifications). This is important, I believe. Sadly, there are times when beating someone to death in self defense would be appropriate.

I've asked my Kyoshi for personal advice from time to time, and he was glad to give it, but never offers without being asked. I feel this is appropriate. For a child, though, I think it best for the teacher to encourage the kid to ask their parents.

Sorry to ramble. Thanks for a place to discuss these issues.

[riku]

As an another student, I agree De Franza: learning of moral code comes in less tactile way and by examples and teacher's personal appearance. It's like, there's seldom direct lessons about self-control, but lessons come in side of other training. Teacher who shows that s/he cares about her/his students, makes training safe, treats students fairly, teaches moral code.

With respect,
Riku Ylönen

[Kimpatsu]

I see that my fellow Kenshi Colin Linz has already said most of what I wanted to say regarding the role of morals in Shorinji Kempo, but I'm going to get a little heavy here (no jokes, please!).
When people confuse ethics and religion, they are committing a major mistake in thinking that morality comes from god, whichever flavour their god happens to be. If this were true, however, then god could make it such that burning babies and raping your neighbour were good, and offering acts of kindness such as helping up the old lady who's fallen over is wrong, just by decree. Consequently, if we accept that god is the source of morality, then morality is arbitrary. If, however, you think that morals are an absolute, then morality and ethics are independent of any divinity, and are the product of human cogitation. Admittedly, there is an element of selfishness to doing good, above and beyond the warm glow of self-satisfaction: given that we are interested in our own survival, the cooperative option often offers the best chance for that continued survival. There is no such thing as true altruism (Jeremy Bentham, please take note!), because no one says, "I don't care about myself, just let XXX be safe". Even if they think in those terms, their self-sacrifice is predicated upon a desire to feel good about themselves, or at the very least, avoid the negative consequences of betrayal, selfishness, etc.
The other point I want to make is the distinction drawn by Aristotle between duty-based ethics and situation-based ethics. All religions are duty-based ethics; they have a table of commandments that must be followed to the letter. Although open to much self-serving interpretation throughout the ages, much to the chagrin of the originators, I suspect, the upshot of duty-based ethics is that it alleviates the practitioner from the burden of having to think. Why do you need to weigh the pros and cons of an action when it's all been made clear for you? This kind of cop-out is often seen to have adverse consequences for many of those involved, such as the honour killings of Islam or the current brouhaha in the Presbyterian Church of the Scottish Western Isles. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Jewish pogroms in Russia can also be squarely placed in this camp.
Situation-based ethics, on the other hand, require that there are no rules; at best, there are a set of guidelines ("Thou shalt not kill" being the obvious example; faced with fighting in war, one may choose to suspend this rule in favour of fighting an enemy such as Nazism) that can be used as a template for deciding how to act during the situation at hand, without being bound by a rigid set of conventions. Shorinji Kempo teachings fall into the latter camp, not least because great instructors such as Mizuno Sensei in the UK have explicitly stated that Shorinji Kempo teachings are not to be interpreted so harshly, but that individuals should use their brains to weigh the merits of an issue for themselves. Contrary to what many duty-based ethicists may believe, situation-based ethics are not a cop-out, or licence to do as one likes; they just allow for the fact that each situation is different, and so should be treated as such. One advantage of situation-based ethics over duty-based ethics is that of cumulative wisdom; as you learn from experience, the weight of new learning can be brought to bear in assessing how to act in a new situation. This is called adaptation, and is a lynchpin of natural selection. Duty-based ethics, by contrast, are graven in stone, and remain unchanged and inflexible until doomsday. (Does one today really still covet thy neighbour's ass?) One case in point is the increasing recognition of the legitimacy of gay rights in recent years. Until 1969, homosexuality in the UK was flatly illegal, then legal between consenting adults over 21, and now over 18, with the next step, legal recognition of assets shared by gay couples, as in a heterosexual marriage, passing through parliament as I write. The hard-nosed attitude of "always and forever wrong" is symptomatic of duty-based ethics. The "live-and-let-live" ethos of situation-based ethics would have resolved this issue long ago. Of course, that's not to say that all the ramifications of duty-based ethics are bad, but for my money, the adaptive, creative, flexible, thinking approach to right and wrong is, in the long run, of greater benefit to humankind, and is embodied in the teachings of Shorinji Kempo.
Peace be unto you all.

[Jeannette]

Very good points, Tony.

[Kimpatsu]

Thank you, Jeannette.

[Kimpatsu]

Another point regarding ethics in training is that you must be able to trust your students. Teaching inherently unstable people how to fight without teaching them the responsibility to go with it is the same as giving them a loaded gun. If they shoot someone, you can't pretend to look the other way and say it's none of your business. Hence the essential reason for including moral codes in training.
Best,

[Rich]

Tony, you stated that:-


individuals should use their brains to weigh the merits of an issue for themselves. Contrary to what many duty-based ethicists may believe, situation-based ethics are not a cop-out, or licence to do as one likes; they just allow for the fact that each situation is different, and so should be treated as such.

What about differences of opinion as occur between different cultures? If a person is murdered, one person may feel that morally the culprit should be executed. Their personal moral philosophy being that you should "pay" for your crimes. A second person may feel that forgiveness should be shown. Their moral philosophy being that a second death serves no purpose.

Differences of opinion will always occur over every issue. For the sake of law and order and the establishment of civilisation we need a set of rules or laws. These "rules" or laws are what give us boundaries and a code of conduct that allows us to interact in a safe and beneficial way.

You also state that: -


Situation-based ethics, ..., require that there are no rules

This sounds like anarchy. Having no "rules" and encouraging individuals to act according to their own set of morals instead of to a set of rules accepted by and followed by all (the Law) is a dangerous path. Of course, individual liberty should not be curtailed but a common set of "rules", accepted and adhered to by all is necessary. The alternative, people acting unfettered by anything other than their own idea of morals (or acting according to self-interest, as you yourself indicated all people do) would see the end of civilisation as we know it. (dramatic stuff, eh?)

What are your thoughts?

Richard.

[Abbax8]

I am instituting a Dojo Code for the students this week. It is something I have thought about for a while. I teach a mixed adult/childrens class. Some of the kids are a little wild- their parents want me to teach them discipline. The code is simple

I will at all times and in all ways try to conduct myself to give honor to my family, my school and myself.

Peace
Dennis

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Rich
What about differences of opinion as occur between different cultures? If a person is murdered, one person may feel that morally the culprit should be executed. Their personal moral philosophy being that you should "pay" for your crimes. A second person may feel that forgiveness should be shown. Their moral philosophy being that a second death serves no purpose.
This is scarcely an issue of clashes between cultures. The death penalty is a hot potato within a single culture; just look at how the debate rages within the United States at present. There are more than two camps, BTW (and even the following list is non-exhaustive):
(1) The pro-death penalty camp, no matter what. The "string 'em all up" brigade.
(2) Those broadly in favour of the death penalty, but who advocate a moratorium until two separate but related issues are resolved; namely, the inequitable application of the death penalty, skewed towards the indigent black population, and the strong possibility of innocent people wrongly convicted and on death row. This latter group is often the victim of inadequate legal representation, which in turn is because they are poor and unable to pay for their own lawyer, so they get the poor, overworked, harrassed Public Defender.
(3) Those who think the death penalty should be reserved for special cases of monstrous evil, such as Hitler, Stalin, or Osama Bin Laden. Such people would prefer that even Timothy MacVeigh should have been given life without parole, rather than exected, as he was.
(4) Those typified by Sister Helen PreJean, who feel that legalised murder is never excusable under any circumstances. (Duty-based ethics, you see; her gut opposition to the death penalty is because of a single verse in her Bible.) These people will never suspend the rule of "Thou shalt not kill" in the face of war against Nazism (see my earlier example), but would rather be conscientious objectors. This is not to say that they are useless in war; they do very well as medics and firefighters. (I'm using examples from WW2 and the London Blitz, here.)
These contentions lie within a single culture, so cross-cultural (in)tolerance is not an issue. And bear in mind, notions such as "kill all infidels" are duty-based ethics; no thinking, just a straightforward, "do as you are told". A thinker (i.e., situational ethicist) would reject such harsh action as wrong. You just proved my case for me. But, to continue:

Originally posted by Rich
Differences of opinion will always occur over every issue. For the sake of law and order and the establishment of civilisation we need a set of rules or laws. These "rules" or laws are what give us boundaries and a code of conduct that allows us to interact in a safe and beneficial way.
But even then, we allow for mitigating circumstances. Are you a duty-based ethicist who sees no difference between a man who stole a purse to feed his crack habit, and a man who stole a can of beans to feed his children? The law does indeed take personal circumstances (i.e., situations) into account. The inflexible duty-based interpretation of the law, such as "hang all sheep stealers no matter what" has softened over the past centuries. Clinging dogmatically to notions of right and wrong without acknowledging the very existence of that huge gray area in between, is symptomatic of duty-based ethics.

Originally posted by Rich
(Snip...) This sounds like anarchy. Having no "rules" and encouraging individuals to act according to their own set of morals instead of to a set of rules accepted by and followed by all (the Law) is a dangerous path.
Ah, you mean chaos. Anarchy is a political philosophy meaning "without leaders", not "without order". Read Kropotkin for details.
Your paragraph above is a strawman. It attacks not the philosophy of situation-based ethics, but what you perceive to be the automatic result of lack of dogma. Your argument considers all people to be rabid short-term animals who will revert to barbarity the instant the brakes are unlocked. This is nonsense. Remember my statement about the cooperative option? Situation-based ethics requires that you "live and let live". In Shorinji Kempo, we express this notion as, "Live half for yourself and half for others". The so-called Golden Rule of Xpianity is "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you". Broad application of this rule is sufficient to ensure that order is not lost.

Originally posted by Rich
Of course, individual liberty should not be curtailed but a common set of "rules", accepted and adhered to by all is necessary. The alternative, people acting unfettered by anything other than their own idea of morals (or acting according to self-interest, as you yourself indicated all people do) would see the end of civilisation as we know it. (dramatic stuff, eh?)
Once again, you're attacking a strawman. In fact, the above argument is one that demonstrates the dangers of duty-based, not situation-based ethics. An Islamic honour killing is predicated upon a duty-based ethic. It then runs into conflict with the liberal western code that forbids killing, even in extremis. However, if our putative Islamic murderer abandonded duty-based ethics in favour of situation-based ethics, the imperative to kill, for example, their own daughter would no longer exist. With the reason for the killing removed, the killing will not take place. The end of civilisation? Hardly. It will be the start of one.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Abbax8
I am instituting a Dojo Code for the students this week.
Dennis, FYI, the Shorinji Kempo code is posted in its entirety below.
---
Seiku
1. Rely on yourself, and not on others. No one is as reliable as your own well-disciplined self.
2. By committing evil, you defile yourself. By avoiding evil, you attain purity.

Seigan
1. In acquiring this Art, we pledge to honour our founder, and not to betray our masters; to respect our elders, and not slight the young. As comrades, we pledge to help each other, and to co-operate for the accomplishment of these teachings.
2. We pledge to leave our pasts aside, and to devote ourselves to mastering the Art as plainly and naively as infants.
3. We pledge never to perform our Art for selfish reasons, but for the benefit of all mankind.

Shinjo
1. We are grateful that we are endowed with our souls from Dharma, and our bodies from our parents. We endeavour to make every effort to return their blessings.
2. We love our country and determine to better the welfare of our people.
3. We love justice, respect humanity, observe courtesy, keep the peace, and determine to be true and brave.
4. We strive to master the Art and discipline body and soul. We love our comrades and help each other. We co-operate and endeavour to establish an ideal world.
---
HTH.
Best,

[Kimpatsu]

Just another thought that's occurred to me, but duty-based ethics as argued imply reducto ad absurdium. For example, Kant argued that it was wrong to tell lies. I doubt people would disagree broadly with that notion, but if we NEVER tell lies, consider the following scenario:
A friend is being pursued by a mad killer, and hides in your closet. The killer bursts in and demands to know where your friend is hiding. According to your duty not to tell lies, you must therefore indicate to the killer where their intended victim is hiding. With situation-based ethics, however, you would misdirect the killer, because a small falsehood is subsumed by the need to save your friend's life. Situation-based ethics, far from leading to anarchy, proves to be a positive force in the world. Rigid duty-based ethics, however, would lead to the death of a friend.
Now, argue against THAT, Rich.

[Rich]

Well, in response I would state that you are confusing a moral question with a legal one. It is moraly wrong to lie but not legaly so (unless by doing so you do break a law, e.g. purjury etc.). You would not be breaking the law by misdirecting the killer. Moraly you would be faced with the decision of lying but saving a life or telling the truth and becoming an accessory to murder as you have aided the killer. This of course leaves you with no decision to make as the law, based as it is on morals, dictates your course of action.

Of course, the additional factor you didn't mention is free choice. You are under no obligation to respond to the question. You may simply respond by stating that you will not be a party to such an obviously immoral act(murder). Having the confidence to stand up to such people and "do the right thing" and only using force as a last resort to restrain the would-be killer are the sort of actions that I believe martial arts should be encouraging. Part of the ethos of Judo is that the strong (in this case you) should help the weak (your friend).

Ta daaaa!

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Rich
Well, in response I would state that you are confusing a moral question with a legal one. It is moraly wrong to lie but not legaly so (unless by doing so you do break a law, e.g. purjury etc.). You would not be breaking the law by misdirecting the killer. Moraly you would be faced with the decision of lying but saving a life or telling the truth and becoming an accessory to murder as you have aided the killer. This of course leaves you with no decision to make as the law, based as it is on morals, dictates your course of action.
Wrong! This is not a legal issue, but a moral one. Kant was not a lawmaker. You are the one who is confusing laws with ethics, because you're arguing duty-based ethics, and all laws are duty-based. This is not the same as situation-based ethics.

Originally posted by Rich
Of course, the additional factor you didn't mention is free choice. You are under no obligation to respond to the question. You may simply respond by stating that you will not be a party to such an obviously immoral act(murder). Having the confidence to stand up to such people and "do the right thing" and only using force as a last resort to restrain the would-be killer are the sort of actions that I believe martial arts should be encouraging. Part of the ethos of Judo is that the strong (in this case you) should help the weak (your friend).
Then why is judo a sport? (Although Kano must be turning in his grave.)
BTW, do we rally have free will? The block universe says otherwise.

[Rich]

I would have to disagree. The example you yourself gave raises both moral and legal issues. You must agree that being an accessory to muder is a legal issue. By answering the would-be murderer honestly you become an accessory to murder as you reveal the location of the intended victim and facilitate the execution of the crime. Thus your example raises the legal question of whether or not to become an accessory through your choice of response. That is an indisputable fact.

The issue of whether or not to lie is a moral question. Morally of course you should not lie. To recap, your example plainly raises both a legal and a moral question.

To address your second point I shall quote you: -


Then why is judo a sport? (Although Kano must be turning in his grave.)

You appear to be unaware that Judo is practiced as both a Martial Art and a sport. I myself practice it as a Martial Art at the Kodokan in Tokyo. Practice consists of warming-up, uchi-komi, studying specific techniques in detail, kata and randori. Not necessarily to include all of these on any one day or in that specific order. I believe you live in Tokyo and I would be happy to show you around the Kodokan. You can then judge for yourself.

You sound surprised that Judo teaches concepts such as helping others and mutual welfare. For someone so obviously well read I find this surprising. I would recommend some further reading. If you do come to the Kodokan you should visit the museum and research department which takes up an entire floor. I would be glad to introduce you to the curator.

Best regards,

Richard.

[Abbax8]

Hi Tony,
I find the Shorinji code interesting. Mine is much shorter, easier for kids to remember. "I will at all times and in all places behave so that I bring honor to my family, my school and myself."

Now for a question for you. Having read your posts I know you enjoy a good debate. Some of your posts seem to put you in the skeptic/atheistic/agnostic camp. Yet the Shorinji code speaks of a soul? I'm hazy on the concept of Dharma. Can you explain Dharma, and do you personally believe we have a Soul? I'm just curious.

Peace
Dennis

[Rich]

To get back to my original point, following duty-based ethics (the law) would mean that using your example you should not aid the would-be killer by responding to the question. To do so would be to break the law yourself by being an accessory to murder.

Murder and being an accessory to murder is both legally and morally wrong. Thus, duty-based ethics, acting as a guide and based on morals (in this case that it is immoral to commit murder or be a party to it) has prevented you from having to lie (by your non-response).

If you were forced to respond (hypothetically speaking) then again the strength of duty-based ethics is bourne out. I am using the law as my example of duty-based ethics as I have been throughout this thread. Telling the truth brakes the law by making you an accessory. You therefore are justified in lying as by doing so you do not break the law. By following the duty-based ethics of the law you take the action which is right according to your duty-based ethics and morally because you save your friends life.

That should close this long-running saga.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Rich
I would have to disagree. The example you yourself gave raises both moral and legal issues. You must agree that being an accessory to muder is a legal issue. By answering the would-be murderer honestly you become an accessory to murder as you reveal the location of the intended victim and facilitate the execution of the crime. Thus your example raises the legal question of whether or not to become an accessory through your choice of response. That is an indisputable fact.
But the Kant imperative ignores the legal dimension; it's the ethical one that we're discussing here. How about this: A soldier can disobey an unethical order from a superior. Therefore, situation-based ethics supercede duty-based ethics. It is your duty to obey the order; it is your interpretation of the situation that tells you to disobey.

Originally posted by Rich
The issue of whether or not to lie is a moral question. Morally of course you should not lie. To recap, your example plainly raises both a legal and a moral question.
See above.

Originally posted by Rich
You appear to be unaware that Judo is practiced as both a Martial Art and a sport. I myself practice it as a Martial Art at the Kodokan in Tokyo. Practice consists of warming-up, uchi-komi, studying specific techniques in detail, kata and randori. Not necessarily to include all of these on any one day or in that specific order. I believe you live in Tokyo and I would be happy to show you around the Kodokan. You can then judge for yourself.
What is the definition of "martial art"? (This is why I hate the term.) Of which Japanese word is it a translation? Budo? Bugei? Bujutsu? Kakutogi? (All of which have different meanings in Japanese.)

Originally posted by Rich
You sound surprised that Judo teaches concepts such as helping others and mutual welfare. For someone so obviously well read I find this surprising. I would recommend some further reading. If you do come to the Kodokan you should visit the museum and research department which takes up an entire floor. I would be glad to introduce you to the curator.
That's just it, Richard. If you tour the museum, you become aware of just how much Judo has changed over the years. I mean; dogi in national colours other than white, for example. This is clearly not what Kano had in mind. That's why I make the point.
Best,

[Rich]

I don't think Judo as practiced at the Kodokan today has changed that much from Kano's time. Granted, atemi waza are rarely taught today however they do appear in the more advanced kata.

The techniques are the same, whether they be nage waza, osaekomi waza, shime waza or kansetsu waza. I believe judo is very similar today to how it was a hundred years ago.

I also believe that the teaching of morals such as respect and a way of living your life such as being disciplined is part of learning judo. These concepts are just as important as the techniques and in fact complement your technique. To attempt to study judo without being disciplined enough to train regularly or respecting your instructor and sempai would be impossible.

In conclusion, as I see it, judo is not a sport, it is a way of life. Teaching morals is therefore entirely acceptable within Judo.

Regards,

Richard.

[Kimpatsu]

Richard,
Judo has changed so much Kano wouldn't recognise it. Dogi in colours other than white, and people at the Olympics pinning cardboard to their lapels to make them more difficult to grasp.
Do you really think Kano would have approved of that?

[Rich]

Tony,

In terms of the coloured dogi, in my humble opinion, yes. Why? Because Kano was an innovator. He founded the Kodokan and created a new Martial Art when he was only twenty-two years of age! Did Jiu Jitsu practitioners agree with that at the time? I'm sure not all of them did. He introduced a coloured belt system. This was a revolutionary concept at the time and I'm sure there were some traditionalists who grumbled at the idea of introducing such gaudy and self-promoting (excuse the pun!) changes to the traditional dogi. This example alone, of Kano himself introducing colour to the traditional dogi in the form of coloured belts supports my view.

In terms of competing at the Olympics I know he would have welcomed this as it was one of his goals for judo. He was extremely active in supporting the Olympic movement and in fact died on board ship whilst returning to Japan from an Olympics related trip abroad. It is sad he died without the knowledge that judo would later become an Olympic sport.

He would not have approved of pinning cardboard to the lapel of the dogi. This is the first I've heard of that. Who did that and when? They would have been disqualified because no metal objects are allowed (not even a hairpin). Something all competitors know.

Personaly, I believe that competition judo is just one part of the larger Art of Judo. Much the same as Uchi-komi is a part and Kata is another part. It is one of the strengths of judo as it allows you to test the effectiveness of your Art in a situation that tries to simulate combat. The opponant has no intention of allowing you to defeat him and therefore it is a good test of the effectiveness of your techniques and allows you to hone and adapt them if necessary.

In conclusion, I feel Kano would have encouraged the use of the blue dogi in competition and probably would have introduced it himself had he thought of it. It is merely a way of differentiating the competitors and has proved highly effective. It has made sport judo more popular as it easier to differentiate the competitors and I'm sure he would have approved of that.

Regards,

Richard.

[Kimpatsu]

A the French national team pinned cardboard to their lapels during the European championships in 1996 and again in 1997, the last year for which I heard anything.
I still disapprove of coloured dogi, though. Dogi are white for a purpose. I know what you mean about Kano's death being a shame; I feel the same way about Kaiso (So Doshin). It would be great to have them, and Ueshiba, and Funakoshi, still alive and walking among us.
Best,

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Abbax8
I find the Shorinji code interesting. Mine is much shorter, easier for kids to remember. "I will at all times and in all places behave so that I bring honor to my family, my school and myself."
...And much less complete, Dennis. Our kids memorise the whole Dokun.
Note that the Dokun is broken into three parts. Seiku is your pledge to yourself, Seigan to your fellow Shorinji Kenshi, and Shinjo to the world at large.

Originally posted by Abbax8
Now for a question for you. Having read your posts I know you enjoy a good debate. Some of your posts seem to put you in the skeptic/atheistic/agnostic camp. Yet the Shorinji code speaks of a soul? I'm hazy on the concept of Dharma. Can you explain Dharma, and do you personally believe we have a Soul? I'm just curious.
Oh, I'm an atheist, through and through. I'm in good company, too: Douglas Adams, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynman, James Randi, Michael Shermer, Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov...
No, I don't believe in souls; they're superstitious nonsense. Look at it this way:
Dharma is the Brahman word for the universe. Some people think this implies sentience on the part of the cosmos, as if the galaxies were somehow alive and directly responsible for all suffering. This is clearly nonsense. However, we are indeed "made of star stuff", as every atom in our bodies was forged in the heart of stars that were themselves made while the universe was young. So when I speak of "souls from Dharma", I'm not talking of divine mysticism or some element of my consciousness that will survive my death. I'm merely acknowledging that all the atoms that make up me were forged in the heart of stars born at the beginning of the universe, and that's quite wondrous enough. Without that universal beginning, none of us would be here now. Doubtless, there are fellow Shorinji Kenshi who interpret that line differently, perceiving it to be a religious statement, because they have their own personal god, of whatever flavour. I'm just not one of them. This plugs quite nicely into the notion of enlightenment; we all follow the same star in Shorinji Kempo, but we get there by different routes. I know from the evidence that god can't exist, but at the moment there are people, Like Mich, who can't survive without that crutch. One day I'll kick it away from him, though. ;)
Definition of an atheist: Someone with no invisible means of support.
HTH.

[ky_]

my club did not teach a moral code and i dont go around abusing my skills and no one else does.
is this really a major part of a martial arts class?
p.s dont try and be funny Tony.
extra p.s i have extencive knoledg of saitanism if anyone needs to know anything.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by ky_
my club did not teach a moral code and i dont go around abusing my skills and no one else does.
is this really a major part of a martial arts class?
Yes, it's the very reason why we train--if it's budo. Without a moral code, it's bujutsu. Or bugei. Or kakutogi.

Originally posted by ky_
p.s dont try and be funny Tony.
I don't have to try; it comes naturally.

Originally posted by ky_
extra p.s i have extencive knoledg of saitanism if anyone needs to know anything.
Good, now you really do have all the tools to worship me.

[tkdcanada]

Tony,

BTW, I'm not a him. What gave you that impression?

Also, I'm curious as to whether you were raised an atheist or if it's something you discovered later in life. Care to say? Also, I didn't say I couldn't live without "that crutch" - I'm not that weak. I merely think that the thought has it's appeal. It must if so many people believe in one type of religion or another.

However, your points bring up another question that I've been wondering about. It may be somewhat morbid but I'm curious. Most deaths are followed by some type of service based on religion. How would the death of an atheist be handled? (Provided that that person's friends and family respected his atheism.) Any answers?

[Sgathak]

Dharma is the Brahman word for the universe.

Dharma is a sanskrit term, it has several meanings as it is a multifunctional term but the most important meaning in a Buddhist context is Nirvana, which is seen by all Buddhists as the greatest possible good. Nirvana means the eradication (uprooting) of the root causes of all dissatisfaction. All Buddhists are striving for that final elimination of dissatisfaction. So that is the principal meaning of dharma. But the word Dharma also means that which helps one to achieve that final goal of Nirvana. What helps one to achieve that goal is a positive and healthy mentality; a single word for that is the word "virtue". So a secondary meaning of the word "dharma" is "virtue" in the sense of good character. But "dharma" also means that which helps one acquire virtue. So a tertiary meaning of "dharma" is a teaching. Any teachings that help one achieve Nirvana can be considered dharma, but usually Buddhists take refuge especially in the teachings preserved in the Sutras (recorded sermons and conversations of the Buddha and his most trusted male and female disciples) and in the Vinaya (the disciplinary code for monks and nuns, people who renounced the household life in order to dedicate all their time and energy to working for Dharma). Other meanings for the word include, "law", "duty", "truth", or "reality", "the way things are", "the laws of nature", or "that which sustains the universe".

One thing to remember is that throughout ancient times, since the era of the Vedas some several thousand years BCE, dharma has been thought of as an unchanging universal law, similar to the laws of gravity, mathematics, and fluid dynamics. As gravity is thought of as a universal law no matter what it is called in different languages, dharma is also considered a universal law no matter what it is called in different religions.

The earliest writings on dharma (from the Vedas) implied that only sages could experience it, and needed to pass it on to the laymen through mantras and other acts. Later on, the writings known as the Dharma Sutras gave a different meaning and implications about dharma: They implied that dharma was the performance of duties in accordance to Vedic law. Dharma was taking on the meaning of "one's role in Vedic society."

Unfortunately, later writings did not help to clear up the loose meanings of the word dharma. They tended not to present a uniform meaning to the word. Further, they gave no practical steps to the lay person on how to realize the dharma for themselves.

The dharma is touched upon at length in The Bhagavadgita (The Song of God), a section of the epic poem The Mahabharata. In it, Krishna explains the meaning of righteousness in sustaining the world order. It is implied that everyone has a path that they must follow in order to uphold righteousness and lead to their individual salvation. Krishna stated that of the three paths that lead to salvation - yoga and ascetic practices, bhakti or devotion, and Dharma or wholesome activities according to your role - it was the latter that was most effective because it contribute to both the individual and the world as a whole, while the two former practices only helped the individual.

Those familiar with Buddhism know that the dharma was the main focus of His meditations. These were the main characteristics of the dharma:

1) Namely, that it was infinite and spanned both the material (mundane) and spiritual (supra-mundane) worlds.

2) The dharma could be thought of as the mental "sense." That is to say, while the eye has sight and the ear has sound and the nose has smell, the mind has dharma.

3) The dharma was the carrier of goodness and wholesomeness, and thus the word dharma good be used to imply a good sense, while the word adharma would imply a bad sense.

4) Dharma was a person's duty, those acts which were fit to be carried out according to their responsibilities.

5) Dharma is a permanent universal truth, including the laws of nature and the nature of laws.

It is through the meditations of the Buddha that he tried to realize the true meaning of the dharma. It is through insight meditation (Vipassana) that the Buddha instructed that laypeople would be able to realize the dharma themselves. The Buddha taught that direct realization on an individual level was superior to relying on speculation or traditional beliefs.

When boiled down,

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by tkdcanada
BTW, I'm not a him. What gave you that impression?
Sorry, I didn't think you were, Mich. Apologies for a mistype.

Originally posted by tkdcanada
Also, I'm curious as to whether you were raised an atheist or if it's something you discovered later in life. Care to say? Also, I didn't say I couldn't live without "that crutch" - I'm not that weak. I merely think that the thought has it's appeal. It must if so many people believe in one type of religion or another.
Just because many people believe something doesn't make it true. (Argumentum ad populam.)
I became convinced in my own mind of the case for atheism somewhere between the ages of 14 and 16. I had a nominal Catholic background. Trouble is, I'm damned no matter what I say. If I tell people I had a Catholic upbringing, they claim I'm rebelling against my treatment at the hands of Catholic priests, and if I tell them I had a secular upbringing, they say my atheism is a result of never having had religion. Science can explain all the questions that religion purports to: human origins and the origin of the universe. Secular ethics are far more ethical than good behaviour driven by a fear of eternal damnation. So what does that leave for religion? A set of inherited superstitions that traditionally pit one faction against another and cause all manner of strife.
Give me rational humanism any day.

Originally posted by tkdcanada
However, your points bring up another question that I've been wondering about. It may be somewhat morbid but I'm curious. Most deaths are followed by some type of service based on religion. How would the death of an atheist be handled? (Provided that that person's friends and family respected his atheism.) Any answers?
There are ceremonies that say goodbye to loved ones without recourse to claims of "being with god". You don't need religion to have a ceremony. (Look at St. Patrick's Day.) :toast:

[tkdcanada]

Interesting. I was just curious as to whether your beliefs came from you yourself or if they were handed down to you. I think it's way beyond me or anyone to try to explain why someone holds certain beliefs. I consider that very judgemental and closed-minded (and not my place). However, I know many people do just that! :(

Thanks for your interesting insight. :)

[Kimpatsu]

Beliefs handed down unquestioningly are called "memes". Religion is a prime example of a meme.

[KenpoKev]

Tony Kehoe Wrote:

Science can explain all the questions that religion purports to: human origins and the origin of the universe. Secular ethics are far more ethical than good behaviour driven by a fear of eternal damnation.

A couple thoughts here Tony. First off, I know that there is no way I will convince you to share my beliefs, nor do I expect to ever abandon my faith. I do wish to thank you for stimulating some interesting discussions concerning faith. It has motivated me to further reading and examination.

I do take issue with your statement quoted above.

Science clearly does not explain all the questions that religion purports to. I have yet to see a scientific "proof" of the explaination of love.

Your comment that good behavior is driven by a fear of eternal damnation is also based on false assumptions. Certainly there are some who are driven to behavior and "good" works based upon fear, but there are many who act based upon love and kindness. Contrary to much fire and brimstone or legalistic doctrine fashioned by man, the gentle carpenter spoke far more about love and mercy.

Interesting thread drift from the original subject.

With respect,

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by KenpoKev
Science clearly does not explain all the questions that religion purports to. I have yet to see a scientific "proof" of the explaination of love.
That science hasn't yet explained something doesn't mean that it can't, so invoking the supernatural is moot, but in any case, you're wrong. Read Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0192860925/qid=1051139159/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-2599951-4333509?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) for an explanation of love and apparent altruism.

Originally posted by KenpoKev
Your comment that good behavior is driven by a fear of eternal damnation is also based on false assumptions. Certainly there are some who are driven to behavior and "good" works based upon fear, but there are many who act based upon love and kindness. Contrary to much fire and brimstone or legalistic doctrine fashioned by man, the gentle carpenter spoke far more about love and mercy.
Yes; he told people to love him more than their own parents, and explicitly stated that those who didn't follow him will go to hell. Interesting expression of love, that.

Originally posted by KenpoKev
Interesting thread drift from the original subject.
I live for thread drift ;) , but in this instance it's not so far off the subject, which is moral codes.
Best,

[KenpoKev]

That science hasn't yet explained something doesn't mean that it can't, so invoking the supernatural is moot, but in any case, you're wrong.

No my friend, it is you who are wrong, but neither of us can disprove the other's assumptions. You stated that science can explain all things. Pure falacy.

I find the reading suggestion largely a waste of my time as I completely disagree with the author's bias at the outset. Why would I bother when I can simply read your comments and learn so much :)

Train well.

Respectfully,

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by KenpoKev
No my friend, it is you who are wrong, but neither of us can disprove the other's assumptions. You stated that science can explain all things. Pure falacy.
Why is that a fallacy? What is it that science can't explain?
Have you read The Selfish Gene? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0192860925/qid=1051141533/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-9996922-4115063?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Originally posted by KenpoKev
I find the reading suggestion largely a waste of my time as I completely disagree with the author's bias at the outset. Why would I bother when I can simply read your comments and learn so much :)
In other words, you won't read him because he disapproves of your superstition. Richard Dawkins is a geneticist, so his views on genetically-driven behaviour count for more than yours or mine. Read him for far more in-depth explanation than I can supply here.
Remeber: all things are ultimately explicable. You claim to disagree. Tell me why.

[Jason H]

Tony,
I don't know if we've been through this before, but have you ever studied the bible from strictly an historical perspective? Also, have you ever studied Greek and/or studied the bible from its earliest greek translations?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Dragonfly
I don't know if we've been through this before, but have you ever studied the bible from strictly an historical perspective? Also, have you ever studied Greek and/or studied the bible from its earliest greek translations?
Not on this board, Jason, but you may have seen me vigorously defending rationalism on other boards.
The Bible as history is interesting, not least because the new testament, and in particular the four gospels, the Acts and Corinthians are a political manifesto that gives insight into the mindset of the Zealots. Unfortunately, the original documents are all Greek to me! :cry:

[Jason H]

I have a strange feeling that you enjoy the works and philosophy of Ayn Rand......

[Kimpatsu]

Actually, I prefer Mr. Doolittle in Pygmalion; "A man of original morals." ;)

[johenora]

No! Why teach a moral code if the student is morally qualified in the first place.He/she either has Budo ethics or does not?
We do teach History, Philosophy, Lineage ,Rules of ---etc through Dojo KUNS etc.
A main principle we follow is a KUN is: On entering the Dojo---the session starts with etiquette--remains throughout with etiquette and ends with etiquette.
Adieu,

[Bonermeister]

.

[John J Hodges]

Lots hear to read, so I've skipped straight to posting. Sorry if I cover familiar ground here.

I look at it like this.

1. Does it hurt you, as an instructor, to teach morals in class?

2. Does it hurt your students to learn morals in class?

3. What happens to you, as an instructor, if a student of yours goes out, gets in a fight, and hurts someone else?

4. What happens to you, as an instructor, if a student of yours goes out, gets in a fight, and gets hurt?

5. If you do not care about the the physical and moral wellfare of your students, why are you teaching?

6. Without morals and honor one is just a fighter or a thug, not a martial artist.

Martial arts is about more than just punching and kicking. There is a reason Musashi talked about the way of strategy. It goes beyond a single fight. Strategy tells you when to avoid a situation all together, when (and how) to diffuse a situation, and when to fight. Is it right to beat the snot out of some drunk who puts his hand on your shoulder or bumps into you? Do you stand there and let someone rape your girlfriend? Where do you get guidance and answers for these questions? If not from morals, then where? The whole purpose of Bushido was to give directions on how to conduct yourself. This is a necessary aspect of all civilization. And martial artists should epitomize what is moral and just about civilization.

[Runar Bjaaland]

This thread has made me think of new things.
Maybe the practise of martial arts allows us enough time and space to glean impressions of an ethical nature.

I think it is personal and should be respected as such. One might be so lucky as to agree with someone else on such a subjective thing, but I doubt it :t2:

In Judo we use the roles Uki and Tori in order to learn co-operation which in effect serve to moderate behaviour.There appears to be less a recorded list of precedents governing this practice, than an expectation to continue trying to find the way to do it.
I hope I am wrong, in the event I can hear more about practises elswhere.

After all, martial arts are about making efforts. :bow:

Cheers
Runar Bjaaland

[PooterMan]

How about the good old John Wayne code:

I won't be wronged..I won't be insulted, and I won't be layed a hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.
:)

[slamdunc]

The martial arts are inherently moral in the first place. One of the most important aspects of any martial arts program should be conflict resolution. Any legitimate system will have a set of steps or a use of force continuum in place.
I enjoy watching old martial arts movies; a perfect example is the first Karate Kid. The evil instructor was teaching his students that "Mercy is for the weak".
In "The Perfect Weapon", Speakman's character goes into the 'enemy' dojo and says "I wonder if I can kick your A@@?".
We teach the physical aspects, but too often lose focus of the psychological portion. What if you have to defend yourself? Reason with the bad guy, try to back him down without making him lose face. If it comes down to it, running away is one form of self defense. Martial artists do not spend years training to run away from a fight, but under certain circumstances, it could be the best answer.
When we train; In sparring, we want only 'clean' techniques, in our defense arts, we teach ripping and tearing techniques, groin strikes, eye gouges, etc.
All of these are ultimately 'moral' issues, and you really have to have faith in the individual judgment of the students.