Lee, I'd like to think you were on to something tying morality and rationality together but that implies that morality always has the high road when we know from experience that morality runs the gamut from high to low. I would however concede that a higher morality generally accompanies a comparably high level of rationality.
On Apr 20, 1:06 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Tinker, > > So yes with the prudish definition I guess you may have a point. So > then wheter to use your definition or mine ummm? > > Since it is morality we are disgusing then, I'm gonna suggest that > morality far from being (as you suggest below) somehow an intrinsic, > instinctive function of the human state is 100% rational. Indeed I'll > stick my neck out and say that only those creatures with a high degree > of cognitive 'reasoning' ability can have a concept such as > morality. > > To ask the question, 'Why be moral' assumes a mind with the ability to > ask and attempt to answer such a question. > > So the word 'unatural' in questions of morality becomes an oxymoron, > it is only when we start to look at morality on the level of the 'gut > feeling' that such words come into play, and of course that then > falsely(IMHO) changes the nature of the dialog to one of emotion > rather than reason. > > On 19 Apr, 18:50, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello Lee, > > > Thank you for the welcome. > > This is the fourth time I've responded to this post. I finally figured > > out why it wasn't getting on the board. (I hope) > > > I can understand and accept the point of view you express. The > > difference in our point of view would be the definition of the word > > 'natural'. The definition I spoke with might be considered prudish. > > > Yes, with that prudish definition of 'natural', I could give a long > > list of things 'unnatural'. I'd begin after mankind acquired free will > > and began raising himself above the 'natural' animal. > > > peace & Love > > > On Apr 8, 1:47 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hey Tinker if you are new to us then welcome. > > > > The anus is most assuredly a natural sex organ. If two men decide to > > > have bum sex, then both of the men, are part of nature, sex is clearly > > > natural, as are all parts of the body, the inclination to have sex, > > > etc... > > > > The word 'unatural' has more to do with emtional feelings than any > > > kind of usefull definition. Can you name even one thing that IS that > > > is not natural? > > > > On 7 Apr, 19:48, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hello People, > > > > > Excuse me for butting in (above) with the authoritative tone and > > > > without recognizing you all. I spent a couple of days getting my > > > > thoughts together for the post, then I had a problem actually posting > > > > and forgot about greeting you. I do speak as if I know what I'm > > > > talking about because of many years running construction work, the > > > > tone of authority is necessary. I really am open to alternate views > > > > though. > > > > > Allan said, "I think society is more immoral than moral." > > > > My understanding along that line would be more specific, 'business' > > > > instead of the whole of Society. The 'rule' of business 'does' suspend > > > > moral consideration for an advantage necessary to succeed in a > > > > competitive environment. > > > > > Molly said, " Is morality only what we feel is good for us? Or is > > > > there a > > > > greater good to consider? > > > > I believe that considering the greater good would be criteria for > > > > 'moral'. > > > > > Michael stirred up an idea that I will present to any discussion on > > > > the subject of homosexuality. I am not anti-gay, and have friends who > > > > are gay. The personal beliefs concerning the sanctity of ones physical > > > > being would define whether or not the act is considered immoral. The > > > > rectum is not, never has been and never will be a 'natural' sex organ. > > > > > ornamentalmind said, "The notion of usury has always been suspect..." > > > > Whether or not Jesus was, the idea of him turning over the tables of > > > > the money-changers, supports the statement. > > > > > peace & Love- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
