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: exdaytrader76 who wrote (19882)	5/2/2005 10:33:55 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"The moral relativist would have to be ok with it, because morality is relative to culture" No. I am decidedly NOT ok with it. What is moral behaviour for some people is NOT moral behavior in my eyes. It is precisely BECAUSE morality is relative, that I CAN utilize my own thoughts and feelings in order to embrace objective standards that I believe and feel are not hurtful to others, and that are compatible with a certain dignity and essential value of humanity. The 9-11 terrorists thought they were the ultimate in moral goodness. It is BECAUSE morality is relative that I can disagree with them and condemn them. It is why I prefer that people derive their morality from objective standards--rather than from superstition. "Morality" based on superstition or strict subjectivity has no common ground between individuals, groups, religions, or nations. It is essentially mindless--and usually vicious and cruel. For example, a lady might think a certain guy is a saint and wish to marry him before the sun sets. Her best friend may consider him an immoral bastard. But an objective person (and either of the previous might be, of course) would consider factually whether his character and behavior were such as to show him as a helpful or as a hurtful person. Morality is essentially about whether people help one another and the group or community as a whole--or whether they harm one another and/or the group or community as a whole. Unfortunately, if the group or culture revolves around some superstition such as that the sun is a God and must be appeased with human blood...then the "morality" of that community will consider sacrifice as being helpful--to both the individual so honored to be sacrificed--and to the community as a whole. It does not mean that I am "OK" with their morality. I would only be OK with it if I was as superstitious and as ignorant as they are. More advanced cultures in afar galaxies might consider the best of humanity to be ignorant and immoral because we eat animals or for other reasons. Everyone must simply figure out as best they can what is right or wrong according to their mind and their heart. Fortunately, an apparent underlying order to things appears to give us reason as a common and accurate arbiter of what serves the interest of both individuals and groups within separate species.