Ethics For The Greater Good

Is it possible to be a fierce advocate, and at the same time not lie or be unkind, harsh, or derogatory? Not simply because of a set of rules, however compelling, but because of a commitment to the greater good?
What if we could practice a level of ethics that serves that highest possible good, and at the same time not compromise our advocacy or ferocity?

Transcript

Hi everyone,

It's Judy Cohen and this is Wake Up Call 364.

And we're exploring SELA,

SELA,

Sometimes called SELA of Hara Mitsu,

Which is the perfection of ethics.

Last week was about how the stronger our mindfulness practice is,

The more we get to choose our intentions and how when we do that,

The more likely we are because we are fundamentally good at our core.

To notice those moments when we're not following the five precepts,

Which are non-harming,

Not stealing,

Not misusing sexuality,

Not speaking unwisely,

And not using substances to cloud the mind.

So,

To notice the moments when we're not following them and more likely to choose kindness,

Generosity,

And ethical conduct instead as our intentions so that eventually they become habits of mind and then our words and our actions become more and more informed by those habits of mind and infused with those good intentions.

But in addition to the five precepts,

There's another list called the ten virtuous acts.

So again,

We're in the realm of ethics and what are the ethical precepts or rules that we want to be looking at.

And the first three of those ten virtuous acts are pretty much the same as three of the precepts,

No killing,

No stealing,

No sexual misconduct.

And I guess I'd say the same except that the first is no killing instead of cause no harm,

Which is the first of the five precepts.

And then the middle four are about communication.

So the middle four of the ten virtuous acts are no lying,

No slander,

No harsh or derogatory speech,

No frivolous speech.

And then the final three are no covetousness,

No anger or malice,

And no false views.

So in the first group,

No killing,

Stealing,

Sexual misconduct,

Again,

The only big difference I see is how explicit or maybe narrow no killing is versus the first precept,

Which is broad,

To cause no harm at all,

Not just to not kill.

And I wonder if this one is easier or more difficult to contemplate,

Especially for a lawyer.

So for example,

Is it killing for a prosecutor to ask for the death penalty or for a lawyer working for ICE to advocate for the deportation of someone who may be at risk to being killed back home?

Or for a law professor to teach students how to do these things,

You know,

How far out do we take it?

And then what about non-work activities like is it killing to swat a mosquito,

For example?

And the Dalai Lama is famous for saying that he has a slight problem with mosquitoes.

You know,

He has a hard time not killing them even though he doesn't kill them.

But he says that's the one place,

Right?

Or what about eating meat,

Right?

And somebody else killed the animal or the fish.

Is that killing?

So I think it raises a lot of questions for us as lawyers and also as humans.

And then with the middle four of the 10 virtuous acts,

Which are no lying,

No slander,

No harsh or derogatory speech,

No frivolous speech,

The first thing is just,

Isn't it interesting that the heart of the virtuous acts is all about communication?

And the texts that these teachings come from are so ancient,

Yet communication is still at the heart of the matter,

Just as it was,

Presumably,

In India of 2,

600 years ago.

So the way we communicate with each other is really the heart of ethical conduct.

And that's also true in the presets.

So Lewis Richmond,

Who's a Zen priest,

Tells the story about being a young Zen student in 1968 in the San Francisco Bay Area,

Who's also an anti-war activist.

And one day he comes to San Francisco Zen Center and asks his teacher,

Who is Shunwei Suzuki,

Who's the founder of San Francisco Zen Center,

What is war?

And Suzuki Roshi apparently pointed to the rush mat in front of him,

Where two people were sitting,

You know,

The woven mat,

And said,

When two people sit down on one mat,

Each person smooths the wrinkles on their side of the mat.

When the wrinkles meet in the middle,

That's war.

And I take Richmond to be saying that Suzuki Roshi was pointing at the war that is most proximate that is happening in our own hearts.

You know,

The war that Joanna Macy talks about in the Shambhala warrior prophecy,

Which you can read about on the about section if you want to go to our website.

So from the perspective of Sila Paramita,

It's the war we have within ourselves.

As we wake up just a little bit,

Once our mindfulness practice is a little bit in place,

And it's that war between self-interest or self-protection and the interest of the system and the greater good.

American psychologist Lawrence Kolberg outlined ethical development.

Just in that way,

He said that we each move along a continuum,

Starting with being a little kid and understanding right and wrong based on whether or not we'll be punished for breaking the rules,

To then a kind of internal agreement to follow the rules because our family,

Our community,

Our society functions better with a set of agreements.

That's sort of the second level of ethical development to a third level of ethical development that not everyone reaches,

He says,

Which is a commitment to social justice,

A kind of set of ethics that lifts everyone despite rules,

Possibly deeply embedded rules like the unspoken rules of white supremacy and patriarchy that might say otherwise.

So we could look at not lying,

Which is the first of the middle four virtuous acts.

Of course,

Lying isn't ethical.

In the first moral stage,

We don't lie because we don't want to be disbarred,

Right?

But then we conduct a settlement conversation and lie.

And do we justify that by saying it's just how the system works?

Or would it be possible to look at lying from the highest level of morality and say,

Or ask,

Can we create something different here?

You know,

A system maybe like restorative justice that lifts up everyone and not just the winner.

So that something different can happen when a public defender negotiates a sentence with a prosecutor.

Can there be a way in which neither side has to lie?

Because if I conduct my work life sort of duty-bound to lie,

Then doesn't that become a habit of mind?

And then am I hiding the ball from my partner without even being mindful of that or from my friends or from my kids?

Yeah.

So yeah,

And I think the prohibitions against slander and harsh or derogatory words,

Which are the next two of the four middle virtuous acts bring up similar questions.

Legal definitions aside for slander,

For example,

How many times did I badmouth opposing counsel out loud,

Let alone internally,

Right?

Or those difficult partners when I was a young associate.

And if you're teaching,

You know,

What are those behind closed doors conversations about colleagues look like,

Or not just teaching,

Practice,

Whatever.

And how much of that do we bring home?

So what about an ethics that looks not just at slander or speaking harshly or derogatorily as virtuous acts,

But also as these ethical commitments from the perspective of not wanting to harm anyone else,

Second level of ethical commitment or ethical development,

And also third level from the perspective,

From Kohlberg's perspective of ethical development.

What about a commitment to not slandering or using harsh or derogatory words,

Because it could point us in the direction of less bias,

Less patriarchy,

Less political division,

Or at least a greater ability to listen to each other and really see one another,

You know?

Even with the prohibition against frivolous communication,

The fourth of the four middle virtuous acts,

What if we stopped trying to kind of hone the floor,

You know,

By speaking,

Speaking,

Speaking,

And instead spent maybe 75% of our time listening,

You know,

Instead of talking?

Because in the end,

Wouldn't we also be healing our own hearts?

In other words,

Isn't this a circle?

You know,

When I stopped lying,

When I stopped using slanderous and harsh and derogatory words,

When I stopped holding the floor instead of listening,

Aren't I acknowledging that,

You know,

After all in this,

Even in this really deeply sanctioned adversary system of the law,

We're in this together.

And aren't I also acknowledging that I need to heal my own heart,

Or at the very least notice,

Be mindful of when aversion or hatred are running and maybe informing the things that I'm saying,

Not just because there are rules against that,

Ethical rules or precepts,

But because it's better for society or my community or my family,

And not only because of that,

But because it's fair and more just and more inclusive.

And finally,

Not only because of that,

But also because until my own heart is healed,

I'm going to continue to hurt others,

Right?

Let the saying go,

Hurt people,

Hurt people,

And heal people,

Heal people.

So I guess the invitation would be,

Slew the wrinkles on our own rush mats all the way to the middle.

Or better still,

Let's say we really are all sitting on one mat,

Let's move the rush mat for each other,

You know,

All the way across.

Okay,

So let's sit together.

Taking a comfortable posture,

Posture that is supportive of both relaxing and paying attention.

Letting the words go and just attending to the breath,

Or the sensations of the body,

Or the sounds in your environment,

Choosing room.

Letting the words go and just listening to the breath.

Let's angels sing.

Okay.

This may be the fourth of the four virtuous acts.

No frivolous communication is not only an invitation to listen to each other,

But to listen to the sirens.

That's it.

And then maybe there's someone in your life,

Your work life,

Your home life,

Whom you care about.

And consider what truthful and kind words you can say to them when you're with them next.

Maybe choose someone it's easy for you to do that way.

And just think of some kind and truthful words that you'd like to say to them.

And then choose someone who is not super close with you,

Someone you don't maybe know that well,

An acquaintance.

And think of something truthful and kind that you can say to them when you next see them.

And with both of these people,

The person you care about,

The neutral person,

Notice if there's any resistance in the body,

In the mind.

Just notice it.

Be super kind to yourself around that.

If it's there,

It's there.

And then think about someone who is difficult.

Maybe an opposing counsel or somebody whose political views are very different from yours.

And think of something kind and truthful that you can say to them when you next see them,

Even if you only see them on a newsfeed or in some very impersonal way,

Or if you see them in person.

And notice if there's resistance to that,

And if there is,

Just bring a lot of kindness to that resistance.

And then what about the most important person of all,

Yourself?

Think of something right now that's truthful and kind that you can say to yourself right now.

Thank you.

Thanks,

Everyone,

For being here today.

Lovely to see you all.

Keep up this practice if it's resonant for you,

And I'll see you next Thursday.

Reviews

Wow! Exactly what I’ve been looking for!
😍🙏