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 (17416)	5/7/2004 2:21:22 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

if they can do what they want and not have to suffer negative consequences? If people lived alone there would be no consequences and the only morality would be self preservation. To live in a society people must live in a way that permits closer contact. That is the basis of ethics and morality. TP

To: Greg or e who wrote (17416)	5/7/2004 7:02:03 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 28931

"All I want is for you to establish a basis to move from what is, to what "ought" to be" Why are you having such difficulty with this? Firstly, everyone in the world operates to certain standards of what "ought" to be done. Rational people have moral standards which value all others because this is rationally the best means of preserving ones life. But let us leave aside for the moment all the various ways and means of developing moral value guidelines. Certainly we can agree that all people are taught the "oughts" and the "ought nots" from their parents, teachers, and community...and perhaps their church. We find minor differences amongst those employing reason as a guide; we find far greater extremes between those guided by imagination and mysticism. Reason is a common ground; but imagination leads one man to hate another because his skin has a colour and he has no "soul". Sound reason does not allow for irrational values. But let me get back to the fundamental problem you have been having: You keep wondering why one group of people don't break the moral rules they believe in (leaving aside whether those rules were developed independently through reason or inculcated by society or church). You keep asking what is to stop so and so from doing such and such. Well, Greg, the same thing that stops Greg from doing such and such stops so and so from doing such and such. If so and so believes he ought not to do such and such then he may act in accordance with his belief. If he fails to act in accordance with his belief and if his actions represent a harm to others then he will be stopped by others...or punished after the fact. Likewise, if Greg M. fails to act in accordance with his belief and to do what he believes he "ought" to do, then others may either stop him or punish him. In neither case will supernatural vampires, werewolves, avenging angels or such-like inform the matter. In Canada (and the US) myriad cultures and religions live side by side under a common Constitution. They have agreed to a broad moral code by which to act and by which to be governed. There are sub-cultural groups (called criminals) who are ignorant of what constitutes rational self interest and who have an irrational set of values. Their "good" is entirely different than what most of us (athesits, agnostics, Buddhists, Jews, Vietnamese, sales people, and others) believe to be good. Naturally they suffer negative consequences because they are not acting to preserve their being. It must be obvious to you that nobody "stops" you from doing what you want. But if what you want is ignorant and against the interests of others then you will surely find that it was against the interests of yourself. So what stops Greg M from doing something he thinks is wrong? Greg M. does. Not a spirit. What stops Solon from raping and killing? Solon does. Not a spirit. Is any of this difficult to understand? Do ALL people have the same morality? NO. Of course not. Morality is relative. If people were equally rational and could equally separate their rationality from their desire...then we would not need government to regulate conduct. We would be honey bees--one body, one mind, one life to preserve. But we do NOT have the same morality. The US Constitution attempts to place morality on a rational basis so that all the myriad extremes of religious imagination may be allowed to exist but not to govern. It is really as simple as that. Oh, and BTW. Several posts back you made an ugly comment that I hated Christians. I think I can honestly say that I don't hate anyone; although I AM emotionally repulsed by many. Rationally, I have nothing but sympathy for the human condition and the terrible inequality which nature gives to the intellect in governing the heart. Naturally I hate every act which hurts another--for it does hurt me. Two people are twice as strong as one. Three people are three times as strong. If the greatest good is to survive and to be happy, then the greatest morality is to love and to cooperate. I cannot state it any simpler than this. If you still don't get it, then I may just take a vacation...