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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (16299)	6/9/2001 8:51:57 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Yes, and none of them established their positions based on your criteria of reason alone. I'm afraid they did. We will leave out the Rabbi so as not to confound a simple issue. All of the others (and the hundreds not included) espoused a moral principle which was to be repeated by Jesus centuries later. If there is only one God as you claim, then these people from different cultures had no way other than through reason to independently arrive at equivalent moral principles which you claim are absolute in nature and deriving from God. None of these people worshipped God. Indeed, they had all aroused God's jealousy by breaking His most cherished commandments. The principles arose independently out of their own heathen brains, centuries before the 3 in 1 God walked the earth. All of these people broke the first three commandments by worshipping non existent gods. They provoked God's hatred and jealousy. Yet, apart from God, strictly through the agency of human reason and empathy--they were able to reach an essential moral principle which you claim is an absolute one. So people may know moral principles without God. Indeed, people have always decided what is right and wrong. The speculation that there is a God who also knows the difference is without evidence, and it is unnecessary to explain the knowledge of right and wrong which people obviously do hold. No, I am challenging you to prove, or demonstrate by pure reason alone, that anything is objectively wrong, or right for that matter People derive their morality from a combination of reason and empathy (it is always through self interest, of course). Reason is an objective tool. Ergo--we arrive at objective moral principles. How much more simple can I present it to you, Greg? People hold values of right and wrong. Some people derive those values from objective tools. Therefore, for those people, under those circumstances--the values are objective. People can also derive principles from the subjective field of the supernatural, the imagined, etc. But there is no guarantee these principles will have any moral value, especially given their arbitrary nature--and in consideration of their logical detachment from the objective world. You are the one quoting the Theists so it looks like you're closer to my position than I am to yours You don't even understand what you believe, do you? Greg, an atheist does not break any commandments strictly on that score. An atheist does not worship any other gods. The people I quoted, however, worshiped non existent (FALSE) gods. They broke the first 3 of God's commandments. They are the farthest imaginable from God. They worship the golden calf as being superior to God. Do you know not the wrath of God for breaking His most cherished commandments? You need to get down on your knees and say a long heartfelt prayer--you who consider the golden calf worshippers as drawing closer to God's favour. My reliance on heathens brings me closer to your position? Incredible. I have demonstrated for you, that none of these people who possess what you admit is a moral principle--that none of these people got that moral principle from God. They were enemies of God, and they had no commerce with the Divine or the Holy. Their ideas may often be examined to observe first hand the reasoning that went into their principles. Of course, every decent principle in the bible can be found in so many secular writings that it is really rather amusing to approach this topic with any degree of seriousness. In truth, you have just been wriggling for several posts now. You don't seem to be able to understand that non Christians and the non religious are simply CHOCK FULL of morality! It is all a matter of objective reasoning versus subjective vagary.

To: Greg or e who wrote (16299)	6/9/2001 11:43:57 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

One great piece of evidence that morality is not subjective is that cultures at various levels of civilization tend to resemble one another, and the they share a number of moral rules, sometimes with minor differences of order or emphasis. This can be taken to mean that morality does not derive from God, since they do not share religious traditions, and there is no obvious dissemination outward from Judea. What is misleading about this is that it juxtaposes the idea of universality with the idea that God specifically revealed the moral law in the course of a particular historical transaction. On the other hand, if moral rules are universal and objective, it is necessary that they be grounded in the nature of the universe. From that perspective, the availability of valid moral laws to rational reflection means that God exists, because only a purposive universe could yield "shoulds". The residual objection would be that moral rules are ultimately practical, ways that society has found to conduct its business, rather than true expressions of underlying value. Since there are a finite number of variations on human social organization, it is not surprising that there should be broad cross- cultural similarities. One thing that is bothersome about that view is the way in which people internalize social rules in a manner that is disadvantageous to them as individuals. In other words, if we assume that self- interest underlies all actions, there must be enormous pressure to cheat. Nor is the invocation of empathy compelling, since there are numerous forms of cheating which do not immediately harm individuals, as in the instance of shoplifting. Besides, it is common enough for the subordination of self to the good of society to entail real sacrifice, as when one heroically dies in battle. Thus, it is a real question why we feel moral rules to have a greater claim on us than mere practical maxims would be likely too.

To: Greg or e who wrote (16299)	6/9/2001 11:51:30 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

Empathy is a very inadequate basis for morality, in any case. For example, if I were to be sure to kill someone humanely, after making certain he had no loved ones to mourn him, it would still not be right to murder him. Additionally, we are content to harm other people when it is deemed fair, and lesser harm causes anxiety when it is deemed a result of cheating. For example, if one wins a promotion, someone loses not only the title, but a substantial raise. However, since someone has to win, it may as well be you, and you are mainly happy. On the other hand, if one is playing small stakes poker, and takes a small pot, say ten dollars, by cheating, one's conscience will likely smart, although the harm to others is less.