Should God be replaced? Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Solon who wrote (17617)	6/6/2004 3:02:57 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) of 28931

"It was you who suggested that the concept was not Absolute but was subject to certain whims and caprice" I don't think so. You will have to give me a link to where I said that. "The most powerful have ultimate say." Again the difference between that and might is right is indistinguishable if as you contend ethics are derived from circumstance. "<<<Your ideas of what constitutes "the benefit (well-being) of the community (which means the individuals who compose the community)" is completely arbitrary.>>>" "It is NEVER arbitrary." How could it be anything but arbitrary if everything is relative? I believe I used the term "conscientious" however I meant to say "social consensus" (general agreement) rather than (guided by conscience). so to restate; <<<Why would they need to defeat tyranny; is tyranny objectively wrong if that tyranny is arrived at by (social consensus)?>>> The Nazi's had a social consensus to kill all the Jews <<<first you seem to grant moral equivalence to actions based on shirt color as if there were no issues involved. Talk about fashion wars! The shirts are not the issue!>>> "(I can't believe you thought that shirt colour was anything other than a proxy for moral belief!)." It doesn't matter you still grant the two moral equivalence. Get real! For such a smart gut you seem oddly dense on this issue. As the D Day anniversary is upon us I can't believe you would see that conflict as one between ethical equals???? Yet this is what your analogy clearly implies. "And this makes one side good and one side murderers, and this does not comport with the Absolute Morality which you claim is written on the hearts of all people. It seems to relate more to the relative opinions of Nation, Culture, and Country!" You are combining two separate issues as though they logically follow one another when they do not. Issue 1: All Men have a common, basic, innate, knowledge of right and wrong. Issue 2: Men do not always act in accordance with that knowledge. Conclusion: When men act in ways that disagree with the knowledge that they posses; then they are objectively guilty of violating those standards. <<<Second you purposely misrepresent my position by saying that killing is written on the hearts of men when I said the knowledge of what is right and wrong is>>> "YOU ARE A LIAR......You said that people knew that wrong was wrong because it was "written on their heart". So tell me how a million people (with stuff written on their heart) can be "right", while another million are "wrong" just because their uniform is another??"" You really are losing it..Calling me a "LIAR" and then restating what I said in essentially the same way is more than a little bizarre! Again I don't grant moral equivalence to any conflict "just because their uniform is one colour--" Ethical judgments can only be based on the particular actions that each side take. I think you need a new metaphor. The rest of your post deteriorates rapidly from there (if that were possible) into a foul mouth and bigoted drool to which no other response is needed.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next