posted
From all accounts, these are not guys who have after careful consideration have decided that they cannot support SSM; these are guys who are looking for looking for a target to bully and find homosexuality something they can all deride.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: CT, I didn't know that bit. If they're aware, on any level, of Human's orientation, and are singling him out because of it, that sounds really crappy.
Yeah, I was pretty sure you were working without that piece of the puzzle. The complication of this issue unfolding across two fora makes for a less-than-clear story for most watching.
From multiple scenes like the ones I described, I have determined that these guys are, well, jerks. To put it politely.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guess I'll jump back in real quick. Olivet, I don't know if your answer to my question was just over my head (quite likely) or if you just got sidetracked and didn't un-sidetrack yourself, but I didn't feel like you answered the question. And then I read the rest of the posts and completely forgot what the question was. I just remember not being satisfied. So if you didn't adequately answer the question (whatever it was)and would like to give it another go, I'm all ears. If I am just being dense, could you speak to me like I'm a child? I won't get mad, I promise.
As for the whole deal about gay and straight friends, I have a few gay friends, and I have many more straight friends who are very pro-gay marriage. I try my best to explain that I am a social conservative on this issue in spite of the empathy I feel for homosexuals. I would like to support them, because it hurts my conscience at the interpersonal level. But I try to explain, as I did earlier here, that it's a sort of big picture thing. I know this analogy came across as very offensive to some, and for that reason I'm questioning the usefulness of it, but I think the moral equalization of homosexuality to heterosexuality is the symptom of a disease in this country. I MUST EMPHASIZE that I don't mean to imply that homsexuals are evil or sick or bad or anything. I am not judging the so-called symptoms. There are plenty of effects, some positive, some neutral, some negative, that are resultant of the disease. If I could take the good and leave the bad, I would. But I'm not even trying to make a determination as to which are which, because my determinations have to be based upon Christian values because that is all I have, and they are not welcome in a debate about homosexuality, or abortion, or pornography, or art, or economics, or anything where anyone who is not a Christian has a stake.
And that is the irony. The disease of this country is the abandonment of the Christian values that this country was founded on and what made it great and powerful. This abandonment will be it's downfall, I am certain of this. Now, if that is not a bad thing, then the disease is not bad either. Was the bullet that went into Hitler's brain bad? Is the kidney disease or whatever eventually kills Osama bin Laden bad?
I'm just saying that there is a price we are going to pay because of the secularization of America. Secularization is not a replacement for Christianity. It is a void, and it will be filled by something else. I guarantee it will be Islam, mark my words.
Again, I don't mean to offend, and I know I do sometimes (or a lot of times, judging from the reactions). This has been pointed out to me enough times that I'm trying to do something about it. So please, take my words at face value.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: reshpeckobiggle: Just wondering, what would you consider to be sufficient basis for morality upon which laws might be enforced? Certainly not "objective" religious belief, I wouldn't think.
The trouble with basing laws on religious belief *only* is that you have to pick a religion. I mean, the Taliban was the result of (I believe) the efforts of people inspired by religious feeling and the certanty of their own righteousness.
*shrug* I think te body politic should make and enforce laws to protect itself and its citizens from material harm. Violent crime, abusive business practices and so forth. Ideally, it would stay mostly out of the practice of religion and the minutiae of people's lives (such as sexual practices, child rearing, the height of one's lawn)except when it is necessary to protect its citizens (the typical "your rights end where mine begin" type of thing).
Went back. I WAS being dense. So, gonna try and tackle this one now. Let's say we must base our laws on something. Let's try morality. Now I think it's pretty well established that there is no morality without religion. Because the only alternative to religious morality is either nihilistic morality or the morality of naturalism from which we get Darwinism and evolution. So the only morality there is is survival of the fittest, which is not really morality.
You say instead we should have "laws to protect itself and its citizens from material harm. Violent crime, abusive business practices and so forth." Sounds good, I guess. But I hold that complete secularism is merely a void. It will be filled. Without a true moral basis, which is neccessarily religious in nature, we have no defense. And so the government has no capability to protect itself. I know this will be disputed, but I'll leave that for later.
*shrug* I think te body politic should make and enforce laws to protect itself and its citizens from material harm. Violent crime, abusive business practices and so forth. Ideally, it would stay mostly out of the practice of religion and the minutiae of people's lives (such as sexual practices, child rearing, the height of one's lawn)except when it is necessary to protect its citizens (the typical "your rights end where mine begin" type of thing).
[edit: sorry; two posts in a row and long.)
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Now I think it's pretty well established that there is no morality without religion. Because the only alternative to religious morality is either nihilistic morality or the morality of naturalism from which we get Darwinism and evolution. So the only morality there is is survival of the fittest, which is not really morality.
quote: Now I think it's pretty well established that there is no morality without religion.
I don't think that's remotely established. I think that basic morality is a natural product of the clearly beneficial phenomenon of mutual cooperation upon which all societies are built. The value of many moral stances, such as prohibitions against murder, lying, and theft is self evident and requires absolutely no appeal to a God or "religion" of any kind*.
*here, of course, I'm assuming you're using the word "religion" as something apart from "philosophy" in the generic sense.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now I think it's pretty well established that there is no morality without religion.
I don't think that's remotely established. I think that basic morality is a natural product of the clearly beneficial phenomenon of mutual cooperation upon which all societies are built. The value of many moral stances, such as prohibitions against murder, lying, and theft is self evident and requires absolutely no appeal to a God or "religion" of any kind*.
*here, of course, I'm assuming you're using the word "religion" as something apart from "philosophy" in the generic sense.
You took the words right out of my mouth. Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(I'll note as an aside that anyone who wants to get into a pissing match about whose moral system is more rigorous or demands more of its practitioners doesn't want to do it with Kant. IMHO.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is true, but since at least some of what Kant demands is, IMHO, evil, rigor and amount demanded of practitioners together are not a meaningful measure of the worth of a moral system. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now I think it's pretty well established that there is no morality without religion.
Ding! Wrong! It's not established at all, in fact it's completely wrong. And since this is an axiom of your post, the whole argument just falls apart.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: This is true, but since at least some of what Kant demands is, IMHO, evil, rigor and amount demanded of practitioners together are not a meaningful measure of the worth of a moral system.
Well, of course.
--
Edited to add: That is, I'd say that they are far far far from the only meaningful measure of a moral system, but I do think they are relevant characteristics. That is to say, I would indeed tend to look askance at a moral system that did not challenge its practitioners or was internally rife with inconsistancies.
Moreover, I was speaking against the stance I assumed RPB would be taking; namely, that any non-religious moral system would be one that is both haphazard in design and self-serving in practice. I could, of course, be wrong in that assumption. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now I think it's pretty well established that there is no morality without religion.
Ding! Wrong! It's not established at all, in fact it's completely wrong. And since this is an axiom of your post, the whole argument just falls apart.
Well, how is it wrong? The whole morality based on survival of the fittest is probably the strongest one, but doesn't really prove that there is Morality. It just proves survival of the fittest. Telling me my argument just falls apart without making any argument as to why isn't very effective, I don't think.
The reason why I say it's pretty well established, by the way, is because all the greatest philosophers had to establish the existence of God in order to believe their arguments could hold any water whatsoever.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: That is, I'd say that they are far far far from the only meaningful measure of a moral system, but I do think they are relevant characteristics. That is to say, I would indeed tend to look askance at a moral system that did not challenge its practitioners or was internally rife with inconsistancies.
Moreover, I was speaking against the stance I assumed RPB would be taking; namely, that any non-religious moral system would be one that is both haphazard in design and self-serving in practice. I could, of course, be wrong in that assumption.
I am taking that stance. My whole point being that without a belief, any belief, in a higher power, there is no true morality. If anyone can truly establish otherwise, you should be writing books about it, because you'd be the first.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Kant, RPB.
Oh, sorry. I thought we were all laughing at Kant.
That was a joke, by the way. I don't know if I made that clear. You know, even he believed God had to exist and there was no way around it.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Well, if you don't understand it, I suppose that is one expected response.
Can you explain it to me, just to show me that you do understand? Thanks.
I don't think Kant even understood it.
By the way, I guess I should go and read the page you linked to. 'Cause I don't even know what it is we're talking about!
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now I think it's pretty well established that there is no morality without religion.
Ding! Wrong! It's not established at all, in fact it's completely wrong. And since this is an axiom of your post, the whole argument just falls apart.
Well, how is it wrong? The whole morality based on survival of the fittest is probably the strongest one, but doesn't really prove that there is Morality. It just proves survival of the fittest. Telling me my argument just falls apart without making any argument as to why isn't very effective, I don't think.
The reason why I say it's pretty well established, by the way, is because all the greatest philosophers had to establish the existence of God in order to believe their arguments could hold any water whatsoever.
Most of those 'greatest philosophers' lived in Christian societies and had a vested interest in establishing their conception of morality on a Christian framework.
Just because Kant saw a belief in God as a prerequisite of morality doesn't make it a truism. The Golden Rule, Objectivism, humanist ethics and other value systems can exist quite independently of religion.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aristotle? Are we still talking about a moral system or morality itself? I don't know about John Rawls, unfortunately.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Just because Kant saw a belief in God as a prerequisite of morality doesn't make it a truism. The Golden Rule, Objectivism, humanist ethics and other value systems can exist quite independently of religion.
As can Kant's system, I'd argue. The system is tenable without God as an anchor.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'm gonna have to admit that my knowledge of philosophy is not in depth enough to argue with you, CT. I just know that from what I am read up on, which includes much of Plato, and Descarte, and all the arguments C.S. Lewis used to make his points, morality is highly unlikely to exist without a God.
Also, it is pretty much impossible to separate ones idea of reality from what one believes, and since I believe in God, moral aboslutes seem pretty apparent to me in in that paradigm.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: My whole point being that without a belief, any belief, in a higher power, there is no true morality.
Why must a higher power dictate what is right and wrong? Are you saying that without a god telling us what's right and wrong, we will cease to have any altruistic guiding force to make us act correctly?
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Aristotle? Are we still talking about a moral system or morality itself? I don't know about John Rawls, unfortunately.
quote:Now I think it's pretty well established that there is no morality without religion.
Ding! Wrong! It's not established at all, in fact it's completely wrong. And since this is an axiom of your post, the whole argument just falls apart.
Well, how is it wrong? The whole morality based on survival of the fittest is probably the strongest one, but doesn't really prove that there is Morality. It just proves survival of the fittest. Telling me my argument just falls apart without making any argument as to why isn't very effective, I don't think.
The reason why I say it's pretty well established, by the way, is because all the greatest philosophers had to establish the existence of God in order to believe their arguments could hold any water whatsoever.
Well, since I was basically echoing what other people had already said, and provided excellent arguments for, I didn't feel any need to clutter up the important point. But since it seems you didn't read those arguments : Simple enlightened self-interest will tell you that it's not a good idea to go about hurting people, because they'll hurt you back. It's just more cost-effective, by and large, to be nice. That's your golden rule right there; and voila, morality.
Edit : And, by the way, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy anyway, but it's particularly weak when you're evidently cherry-picking your authorities. Plenty of philosophers, starting with Aristotle, felt absolutely no need to prove any gods. I suggest you become familiar with some philosophers who were not Christian apologists; picking only the Western tradition from about 1000 to 1700 CE is going to give you an extremely skewed view of what 'good philosophers' there are.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Real quick on Aristotle. One of the foundations of his philosophy was in the idea of Purpose. Namely, all things have purpose. That is at the essence of a belief in God, I think. Because without a creator, there is no purpose.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Well, I'm gonna have to admit that my knowledge of philosophy is not in depth enough to argue with you, CT.
That's fine. Really, it is. We don't have to argue.
quote:I just know that from what I am read up on, which includes much of Plato, and Descarte, and all the arguments C.S. Lewis used to make his points, morality is highly unlikely to exist without a God.
I think it's clear that you haven't read enough to make sweeping judgments about the set of all moral systems, then. Doesn't mean there is something wrong with you, by the way. I myself refrain from making sweeping statments about economic systems, since my own familiarity with the subject is quite limited.
quote:Also, it is pretty much impossible to separate ones idea of reality from what one believes, and since I believe in God, moral aboslutes seem pretty apparent to me in in that paradigm.
Fair enough. It might be interesting to do other reading and see if this still holds true for you, though. You might find moral absolutes elsewhere, too, and this wouldn't (or shouldn't, IMO) have to affect your belief in God. It might just mean, for you, that there is God and this.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, Claudia, I'm not qualified to engage you here. Hitoshi, King of Men, I may be missing your guys point, but I think you guys are definitely missing mine. I'm talking about the actual existence of Morality (purposely capitalized), and not the illusion of morality. So Hitoshi, I'm not saying that we need our morality dictated to us by God. I'm saying that there is no Morality without him. I believe we are imbued with it in our being. And it comes from somewhere, and not evolutions un-purpose of self-preservation.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Real quick on Aristotle. One of the foundations of his philosophy was in the idea of Purpose. Namely, all things have purpose. That is at the essence of a belief in God, I think. Because without a creator, there is no purpose.
That's kind of like saying that most city buses run on wheels, and since wheels are involved in locomotion, birds cannot fly.
Aristotle was about as far as a theologist as you can be. He didn't (AFAIK) even use the word "God" or anything which could be reasonably translated as such. Are you thinking of an "efficient cause" or a "final cause"? Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Getting away from the discussion of ethics without a god for a moment, let me consider ethics with a god. I suppose we would agree that killing is generally bad, although sometimes necessary to avoid a worse evil. Now then, do you consider that this is a law that your god has set up, like "No other god before me"; or is it a moral rule that exists independent of your god, but which the god chooses to follow and enforce because it has decided to be good?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Sorry, Claudia, I'm not qualified to engage you here. Hitoshi, King of Men, I may be missing your guys point, but I think you guys are definitely missing mine. I'm talking about the actual existence of Morality (purposely capitalized), and not the illusion of morality. So Hitoshi, I'm not saying that we need our morality dictated to us by God. I'm saying that there is no Morality without him. I believe we are imbued with it in our being. And it comes from somewhere, and not evolutions un-purpose of self-preservation.
Ah so, you answered my question while I was posting. You are saying, then, that since your god does not exist, killing is ok? The only reason killing is bad is because your god has decreed it?
As an aside, the existence of some Platonic ideal of morality is irrelevant; since you could never measure the effects of such a thing, who cares? What you call the 'illusion' of morality is all you'll ever be able to see, short of experimenting with cyanide; a difference that makes no difference is no difference.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, okay. I see you are wishing not to pursue our course of discussion. Again, fair enough.
You will see, though, that your statement of personal faith for yourself makes more sense (and is more tenable) than the following:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: So, gonna try and tackle this one now. Let's say we must base our laws on something. Let's try morality. Now I think it's pretty well established that there is no morality without religion. Because the only alternative to religious morality is either nihilistic morality or the morality of naturalism from which we get Darwinism and evolution. So the only morality there is is survival of the fittest, which is not really morality.
Here you speak of more than just your personal faith, but of claims about:
1) what is generally established about morality 2) the limitations (in your eyes) of non-religious morality
You see, when you make claims about specific other things in the world, then you are making claims about other than just your personal belief. And that's different. But if your (clarified) position is just that other things don't make sense to you yourself, well, then that is hard to disagree with.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right CT. As are you, King, in your edit. But the thing is --and this an excuse, I am aware-- There is only so much time to live your life, and when it comes to finding a basis for your beliefs, either you can constantly question the basic premises and never get off the ground, or you can feel that you are reasonably confident that it is okay to proceed to the next level. I questioned the basic premise of existence, and found that there must be a creator. From there, I've continued on.
This is the basic premise, and I don't know how it could possibly be refuted. There is purpose in existence. Purpose cannot be the product of chance. Therefore, existence is not the product of chance.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: There is only so much time to live your life, and when it comes to finding a basis for your beliefs, either you can constantly question the basic premises and never get off the ground, or you can feel that you are reasonably confident that it is okay to proceed to the next level.
Now that's a real "false dichotomy"!
But I'm glad you have found some answers that give you peace. That is a good thing. It's more dicey when you start to apply what works for you to others, especially without (IMO) rigourous self-reflection, but at least the peace you have is a good thing in itself.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
I guess all I'm saying is that it seems apparent that there is a Creator. And not just to me, but to the vast majority of people, throught all of history. Now, decisions have to be made in a government. Since most people believe that God has a purpose, it would be democratic to make those decisions based upon what we (the majority) feel ir God's purpose. Unfortunately, that too often results in oppresion or unfairness in some way. But relying on a system of morality that is supposedly independent of God is not fair either, and it certainly isn't democratic.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: There is only so much time to live your life, and when it comes to finding a basis for your beliefs, either you can constantly question the basic premises and never get off the ground, or you can feel that you are reasonably confident that it is okay to proceed to the next level.
Now that's a real "false dichotomy"!
But I'm glad you have found some answers that give you peace. That is a good thing. It's more dicey when you start to apply what works for you to others, especially without (IMO) rigourous self-reflection, but at least the peace you have is a good thing in itself.
I
t would appear to be a flase dichotomy, but I don't think it is. If Descartes continued to doubt the existence of God, then he never would have gotten past "I think, therefore I am."
And don't jump to conlusions! These answers haven't given me peace! Why do you think I'm here, arguing with everyone?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: You're right CT. As are you, King, in your edit. But the thing is --and this an excuse, I am aware-- There is only so much time to live your life, and when it comes to finding a basis for your beliefs, either you can constantly question the basic premises and never get off the ground, or you can feel that you are reasonably confident that it is okay to proceed to the next level.
Well, in principle I have to agree with you here, but in that case, what are you doing in a thread that is (is now, anyway) precisely about discussing those basic premises?
quote:This is the basic premise, and I don't know how it could possibly be refuted. There is purpose in existence. Purpose cannot be the product of chance. Therefore, existence is not the product of chance.
I refute it thus: In the first place there is clearly no purpose; in the second place purpose can in fact arise from chance. So your argument falls down in two places.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Moving to fast...
I guess all I'm saying is that it seems apparent that there is a Creator. And not just to me, but to the vast majority of people, throught all of history.
(You might be interested in looking up the numbers on this, specifically Buddhism, Chinese Traditionalism, Ancient Greece, curent numbers of atheists, and the like. Also note systems of belief in multiple "creators" -- you might well find that Hinduism, with its multiple gods, outweighs monotheism.
If your reasons for belief in a monotheistic deity rests in numbers of people who agree with you, then this could be tricky.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, King, but you're not making any sense to me. There clearly IS purpose. Did you mean to write that sentence, or did it happen on accident? And second, explain how purpose COULD come about by chance?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Moving to fast...
I guess all I'm saying is that it seems apparent that there is a Creator. And not just to me, but to the vast majority of people, throught all of history. Now, decisions have to be made in a government. Since most people believe that God has a purpose, it would be democratic to make those decisions based upon what we (the majority) feel ir God's purpose. Unfortunately, that too often results in oppresion or unfairness in some way. But relying on a system of morality that is supposedly independent of God is not fair either, and it certainly isn't democratic.
Sheesh, dude. In the first place, majority decision is not democracy, it's mob rule. Democracy is majority rule plus minority rights, including the right not to have somebody else's morality imposed on you. In the second place, most people through history believed slavery was natural and necessary too, but I don't see you arguing we should be democratic on that score. If you invoke an argument only when it happens to support what you want to do, it's a bad argument.
And in the third place, the existence or not of a creator is not a moral question, but a question of fact, to be decided by appeal to the evidence, and not, not, NOT by counting noses. Especially the noses of, you should excuse the expression, pig-ignorant shepherders two thousand years dead!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm talking about the actual existence of Morality (purposely capitalized), and not the illusion of morality.
How would you distinguish between the two, all else being held equal?
I submit that there is no meaningful difference between an "actual" Morality and an "illusory" morality in a world where the observable results of either are indistinguishable.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't Claudia. But since you bring it up, my argument is based on a Creator. Monotheism, Polytheism, Buddhism, they all believe this came from somewhere. The void in Buddhism isn't quite as purposeless as us westerners believe. The only true alternative to the ultimate basis for belief in the divine (Purpose) is Darwinism.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It would appear to be a flase dichotomy, but I don't think it is. If Descartes continued to doubt the existence of God, then he never would have gotten past "I think, therefore I am."
It is a false dichotomy. It's possible to continue to question your basic assumptions while still moving forward, just as you can use a (physical) map to find a store, even if you aren't entirely sure it is entirely accurate as a map. You just fold in the new information as you go.
quote:And don't jump to conlusions! These answers haven't given me peace! Why do you think I'm here, arguing with everyone?
Ah, well. Continue to argue and read and puzzle through it, then. It makes for a good life.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I'm sorry, King, but you're not making any sense to me. There clearly IS purpose. Did you mean to write that sentence, or did it happen on accident? And second, explain how purpose COULD come about by chance?
What it says is what I meant: There is no purpose. You just have to look at the platypus to realise that. There's total uselessness for you!
As for purpose arising from chance, why, once again you can consider the humble platypus: Nothing but a means to produce more platypuses, yet it evolved by mutation and selection, same as the rest of us.
This may look contradictory; it's because I'm using 'purpose' in two different senses. First sense: The platypus does not have a place in some grand Scheme Of Things imposed by an outside agency, ie a god. Second sense: The platypus acts in such a way as to produce more platypuses; therefore, it has some dim awareness of a thing it wants to do. (If you don't like platypuses for this, put in some more self-aware organism, like dolphins.) In other words, the purpose of getting laid arose by chance.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm talking about the actual existence of Morality (purposely capitalized), and not the illusion of morality.
How would you distinguish between the two, all else being held equal?
I submit that there is no meaningful difference between an "actual" Morality and an "illusory" morality in a world where the observable results of either are indistinguishable.
Well, you can't, and that's an excellent observation. But what you CAN do is determine whether an illusionary morality is worth basing anything on. Beliefs, laws, whatever. So for the purposes of government, the one that seems to have an actual existence is probably best. It's alos best for making the decision to be a good person.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
