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 (17619)	6/7/2004 9:34:05 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"Again the difference between that and might is right is indistinguishable if as you contend ethics are derived from circumstance" Greg, give your head a shake. The fact that the most powerful have ultimate say does not indicate on what ethical basis any particular culture or tribe sets standards of behavior. The powerful may be the Taliban, the RC Chrurch, the "people", the King's men, or whatever. The powerful may use myths and superstition to guide them, or they may use reason and philosophy. You keep trying to misdirect the simplest ideas; are you truly unable to follow along? "How could it be anything but arbitrary if everything is relative?" If there is a discernable basis for the standards of the community, then it is not arbitrary. Even if it is a Christian or a Taliban basis it is not arbitrary. If the code says to bury a woman in sand to her neck and throw stones at her head because she wore make-up....it is not arbitrary. It is stupid, cruel, and irrational...but it is not arbitrary. "I believe I used the term "conscientious" however I meant to say "social consensus" (general agreement) rather than (guided by conscience)." Well, that is nice. But it doesn't change the question; and it doesn't supply an answer! "Do you think they were "good"! When they murdered through the Dark Ages of religious madness was it because they were reading short-hand off their little hearts!" _______________________________ "It doesn't matter you still grant the two moral equivalence" Nobody can misunderstand practically everything in a post as often as you do and pretend it is not deliberate. If morality was Absolute--if it was independent of the self serving relativity of individuals and tribes, then the SAME thing would be "written on the hearts" of those diametrically opposed groups. THEN it might make some sense to accuse half of them of WILLFULLY ignoring the word of God and choosing to flagrantly violate His Will. But only an idiot would suggest that most of the killers from clan and country were anything but sincere in their belief that they were doing the good. For example, when a Muslim fights a Jew for the Holy land it is because he sincerely believes it is good to fight for that land for his subjective belief that "Allah" is the God of all. When the Crees raided south to the Dakotas they believed they were doing good by stealing and killing....and vice versa. Good was all a matter of perspective. So your explanation that people all have the "good" "written on their hearts" is only sensible if you acknowledge that that "good" is different for all people and is intensely relative, subjective, and self serving. For you to pretend that every single person on the opposite side of your particular ethical stance in every raid or war or clash is willfully violating what is in his moral compass of understanding is unadulterated asininity. For you to suggest that the Japanese thought they were doing wrong when they shot an American or that a Cree thought he was doing wrong when he stole a pony from a rival and returned to feasting and praise from his peers; for you to imply these things, as you have done--that is asinine. If ethical values are written on people’s hearts, and if morality is Absolute such that between two opposite actions taken around a single instance only one of them may be the morally correct one, then only the premise that one of the two actors is always being intentionally insincere and immoral may rescue your hypotheses--which makes it look very very stupid now, doesn't it, Greg?! "and then restating what I said in essentially the same way is more than a little bizarre!" That is BIZARRE! I took the opposite stanch of you! I claimed that morality is relative and that every shred of evidence goes to prove it is so: That every time values clash it usually indicates two opposing sides believing with all sincerity that they are in the RIGHT. If morality was Absolute and the "Right" was "written on their hearts", then one group would always be saying: "Damn, I just KNOW this is wrong! He ought to be killing me! That would be only fair and right! But I will not "act in accordance with that knowledge"--a la Greg M.! LOL! "The rest of your post deteriorates rapidly from there (if that were possible) into a foul mouth and bigoted drool" More of your asinine personal attacks as a substitute for responding to the issues which you clearly have no answer to. But I will repeat the "bigoted" drool for you: "So you said that the "knowledge of right and wrong" is written on the "hearts of men". I responded to that several times to point out the contradictions--but I have no problem with doing it again. HOW LOGICAL is it to believe that 1,000,000 people wearing one uniform are ALL intentionally evil (even though it is written on their heart what is right) while every single individual of the 1,000,000 wearing the other uniform are all good---in spite of free moral choice??!! Let me help you. According to you, the Christian God has written upon ALL hearts the knowledge of right and wrong? RIGHT? Well--how thick is the bloody handwriting? Muslims are blowing up little children from both sides and Israelis are killing hundreds per month in "collateral" damage. And you sit there giving me smug responses about uniform colours because you cannot get the point?????"