Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (78440)	4/18/2000 6:43:00 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 108807

The first discussion was about the origin of moral values. Rogers and his crowd believe (but offer no proof or authoritative sources) that societies just happened to evolve to a general consensus of moral values, allowing for differences among societies. Of course, in that thought process, there is an implicit assumption that moral values must be innate to the human species (lest their origin be divine by definition). You and I seem apart mostly on semantics. While certain religions perpetuate morals, it is true that they are not the source but the facilitator of the Creator's word.

To: one_less who wrote (78440)	4/19/2000 6:46:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I would venture the "source of morality" to be also the source of religion. I agree, but I would add this source is also the source of law and law enforcement. I believe that the source is simply the need of social beings for a set of rules to govern social conduct, and for mechanisms to encourage compliance with these rules and punish violators. I think you agreed that an idea can stand alone as an abstract. Sorry, no, I can't agree with that. I believe human beings through meditation, prayer, scriptural study, and/or via a messenger can discover the moral system that human beings need to use in order to be successful as human beings. I notice that your list of possible sources omits practical experience of what works and what doesn't. Is there a reason for this? Do we forbid murder, theft, and adultery because people prayed and meditated, dipped into the void and came out with the notion that these things were, in the abstract, "bad"? Or because people noticed that murder, theft, and adultery were almost always followed closely by destructive conflict within the group? Apply Occam's Razor. Which explanation is simpler?