If we stick to "The Way" in Taoism, won't it be sinful?

Question

The short question is: if we stick to The Way in Tao Te Ching, won't that be sinful?

That's because, The Way seems to be the "most natural way". For example, if we know the manager likes flattering, we flatter her and then once we know she is friend with us, we backstab our coworkers in front of her. If a man is with a woman and she is totally drunk, the natural way could be "to make a million babies with her" (as in the movie American Beauty).

---

Details: even the verse 38 of Tao Te Ching, states that "Top virtue is not (appearing to be a) virtue... if we lose The Way, then we go by Virtue, and if we lose Virtue, we go by Human Compassion (仁) or Humanity, if we lose Human Compassion, then we go by What Is Right and Responsibility, ... so The Way is the highest.

However, The Way or The Most Natural Way can be very cruel. It can be the most selfish, without conscience, almost like a sociopath or psychopath. Do it the most natural way, it can be seen as deserving to go to hell in Buddhism, Muslim, Christianity, Catholic, and many religions. For example, if a person can earn $100 million but he has the ability to take $99 million and leave scrap to people who work just as hard as him, he would take $99 million, because it is "the most natural way".

Here, I will put down Thomas Cleary's translation and the original text of verse 38:

38. Higher Virtue Is Not Ingratiating

Higher virtue is not ingratiating; that is why it has virtue. Lower virtue does not forget about reward; that is why it is virtueless. Higher virtue is uncontrived, and there is no way to contrive it. Lower virtue is created, and there is a way to do it. Higher humanity is created, but there is no way to contrive it. Higher duty is done, and there is a way to do it. Higher courtesy is done, but no one responds to it; so there is forceful repetition. Therefore virtue comes after loss of the Way; humanity comes after loss of virtue, duty comes after loss of humanity, courtesy comes after loss of duty. Manners mean loyalty and trust are thin, and disarray's beginning. Foresight is a flower of the Way, and the beginning of ignorance too. Therefore great people dwell in the thick, not the thin. They abide in the substance, not the flower. So they leave the latter and take the former.

第三十八章 上德不德

上德不德，是以有德。下德不失德，是以無德。上德無為而無以為，下德為之而有以為。上仁為之而無以為，上義為之而有以為。上禮為之而莫之應，則攘臂而扔之。故失道而後德，失德而後仁，失仁而後義，失義而後禮。夫禮者，忠信之薄，而亂之首也。前識者，道之華而愚之始也。是以大丈夫處其厚不處其薄；居其實，不居其華。故去彼取此。

Answer 1

For a Taoist, this is not a problem, because, so far as I know, it does not have a concept of sin. As your quotation says "..virtue comes after loss of the Way". Since vice is the opposite of virtue, presumably vice also comes after loss of the Way, though the quotation is not specific about that. Sin, of course, is a concept embedded in theology and I'm not sure what meaning it has outside that context.

All translation is difficult. Translation of the Dao De Jing is very, very difficult. It would be as well not to assume that the word translated "natural" means exactly, or even approximately, what it means in English. For example, in English, what is natural is sometimes regarded as good and sometimes as bad. I'm not at all sure that corresponds to the Taoist attitude.

Working out what Taoism might mean in a different culture with different basic ideas is very difficult and it is important not to assume the concepts in English and the language and culture of the Dao De Jing are more than very roughly equivalent.

Answer 2

One, if not the most important, aspect of human nature is to resist/deny/reject (human) nature. So the natural thing to do might be to seize an opportunity, but not to is also as natural. This instantiates, as you already know, a recurring motif in Taoism - up is down! Like Hilbert's Hotel, there's always room.

Answer 3

Taoism is not concerned with good and evil. It sounds that your thinking is deeply founded in the Western and Christian worldview. To elaborate on your first example: I would claim that it is not natural to care about flattering, to backstab our coworkers nor to overly care about the boss's opinion.

Taoism uses the mythical neolithic era with people as simple villagers as its ideal state of society and people. At other times it gives an example of a small child. All of the negative decisions you mention would happen due to the corruption of the society and straying from the right Way.

At other place, chapter 67 promotes the virtues of compassion, modesty and humility. So it doesn't embrace the greedy selfishness you propose. Also compare with the character of Yang Zhu, the famous taoist-egoist. Even his idea of egoism is far from this.

Finally, Taoism often challenges Confucianism. You can see this in the chapter 38. Confucianism gives precendence to our outer relationships, our proper behavior towards others and teaches that this gives us the right Way. Taoism goes the other way, starting inside and saying that following the ever fleeting Way, we would naturally live full, satisfied lives and create a harmonious society.

Answer 4

It seems you have two questions here, (1) one pertaining normative ethics and (2) another pertaining what decides one's course of action.

(1) Taoism is more a school of thought, than a religion. Nonetheless, most all religion attempts to identify and spread a universal normative ethics. However, since action and thought is enslaved to environmental perception, you can't form a universal normative ethics; experience is relative, (experience forming one's conception of virtuosity, compassion, etc). So yes, in its very essence any particular normative ethics would violate in some manner another one. This concept doesn't mean one ought not form a personal ethics, just realize one's ethics are relative. Consequently avoiding any group that attempts to render one ubiquitous.

(2) One would think what one decides is based on the personal ethics one holds, but what one decides is ultimately based on how much free-energy an action reduces. Thought experiment: I present you with a red button, and if you press it, you will receive $99 million however someone you don't know will immediately die. Are you pressing the button? Imagine practically just how many things you wouldn't have to consciously process in order for them to be completed if you did. The money would allow you to pay someone to drive you places, buy your groceries, deliver your groceries, and even cook your food for you, etc. etc. etc perhaps for the rest of your life. Given all action is in service of minimizing prediction error (i.e. taking action to minimize the amount of things you consciously process), then you have an adequate formulation of human behavior. You either press the button, because you realize how much long-term error is minimized via the implications of more money. Or you don't press because your brain's current reinforced modality for what's "right" and "wrong" doesn't allow you to act in ways that violate it (i.e. pressing would cause more error than not, i.e. pressing is an action that produces error, i.e. error you consciously process). When you say "natural way", under computational neuroscience, I assume you are referencing across a population what action is mostly considered universally optimal to reduce error. Most wouldn't take a bullet for someone else, however there exists scenarios where more error reduced by killing yourself than being ok with someone else dying.

I think it's interesting Americans eat cow a few times a day, whereas Indians never do. Just as I think it's interesting certain religions within the U.S. prioritize not eating meat, whereas others don't at all. Our brains are constructed via environmental experience; our actions are constructed via our brain's intrinsic drive to reduce error, i.e. for our beliefs to match our environments and our environments to match our beliefs.