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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (17307)	4/27/2004 2:18:11 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"I was not trying to suggest that you are completely immoral" What you have said many times is that I do not have a basis for my morality. And that is poppycock! "You mention Kant's categorical imperative and Buddha's do no harm principal. I will leave aside the Buddhist dogma for now as just that." I fear I have confused you somehow. My reference to Kant and Buddhism was merely as examples of how different people use different foundations for their actions and behaviour in the world. I have no intention of defending either one as an Absolute guide to morality because there is rationally no such thing. I will say, however, that the Buddhist framework for acceptable and good behaviour is as democratic and universal as one could hope for in a universe that is composed of myriad life forms (and individuals within forms) competing for physical, social, and emotional resources as a matter of self interest--and (by logical necessity) from a relative and subjective perspective. Of course Kant climbed out on a limb. So did you, and so does everyone else who tries to assert that morality may be determined from an Absolute assumption. It is obvious that right and wrong are opinions. A common biology allows people to make similar laws and rules to encourage fair treatment and discourage mistreatment of one another. In similar cultures (and absent the overwhelming influence of myth where such defines a culture), one finds that most virtues and vices meet reasonable agreement. Humans generally do not eat other humans. We value our sleep far too much for that. Of course, if an ice age killed all the plants and a virus killed all other animals...THEN we WOULD eat one another. But we would likely still do it on a "moral" basis--relatively speaking, you understand. Dr. Taylor makes it clear that he has the same moral ground as has anyone else in a given society. He has his brain and he has his heart. And he can access centuries of profound thought, and learn from centuries of human error. It saddens him (as it does many others) that fundamentalist fanatics cannot internalize a moral basis beyond "God is watching". So if "God" was NOT watching--they apparently have no basis for treating others with moral decency (at least, so they are forever telling us). So the Dalai Lama, Dr. Taylor, and poor misguided Solon can just continue to do no harm--whether God, Allah, Kali, or Manitou is watching them or not. Others can spend hours (or indeed, a life-time) poring over whichever ancient documents (out of millions) they wish to make their security blanket.