SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Should God be replaced?
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Solon who wrote (17540)5/27/2004 10:29:30 AM
From: Greg or e  Read Replies (1) of 28931
 
"What you DID say was that if we are a product of evolution then we CANNOT judge between right and wrong. And that is patently absurd."

If what I meant by that was that you could not choose green socks over blue then it would be absurd. You have to give it the worst slant in order to avoid responding substantively.

"Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the "oughts"

That is why evolutionists are are left with nothing but suggestions. One need not imagine what happens when this philosophy is put into practice since Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot have all given us a shinning examples of evolution in action.

"All creatures act in accordance with their nature. Most creatures lack reason and thus may act to their benefit only through instinct....Humans have the capacity to reason and thus may formulate ethics based on free will or choice--with the benefit of hindsight, foresight, and analysis, and predicated upon values chosen with the intention of preserving life and promoting happiness."

It would be a wonderful world if acting "in accordance with their nature" and "the intention of preserving life and promoting happiness." were synonymous, sadly we seem to find the opposite to be true.

You must get dizzy chasing your logical tail around like my dog. You can't establish universal ethics by starting with a universal ethic

"All people from all ages have had opinions about how best to behave in society....They have always considered two basic answers: 1). One ought to act to create value or benefit in accordance with reason, or 2). One ought to obey whatever particular Deity is in vogue in a particular community"

That is not true. It is only very recently that anyone has tried to do away with transcendent ethics in favor of a strict Humanist/Atheist perspective. That little experiment has been an unmitigated disaster and resulted in the bloodiest century in all history. The sheer naivety of Humanist assumptions regarding the altruistic motives of people like Stalin and Mao, demonstrates that they are obviously unsustainable.

"where the benefit of humanity (by which I mean the individuals) is taken as the raison d'etre of human ethical guidelines..."

That's your leap of faith, but in the real world, it turns out to be a leap into the fire.

Stalin called people like you "Useful Idiots".

Was he wrong?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News