Michael Redler wrote:
(Well, I wrote this part, not Michael!)
> "Morality is about "right conduct", and I think we all have a basic
> understanding of what this means."
(To which Michael replied)
>
> The beginning of a slippery slope and it assumes that your basic
> understanding and mine are identical with no Grey areas.
Hmm . . . That's not really what I was thinking. Our society
generally agrees that my rights end where yours begin, and that the
weaker members of society should be protected from exploitation by
those who are stronger. How that principle gets implemented into law
depends on those we have elected to legislate on our behalf, but much
of our law is based upon this idea.
I think I understand, however, where you're coming from in this. So
then I ask you: "How can we KNOW how we should behave?" and further,
"Who is responsible for deciding what constitutes "right" conduct?"
>Pat Robertson
> talks about morality all the time on the 700 club.
He's a blithering idiot and about as "amoral" as they come.
> By the way "Lord of the Flies" is just fiction, right? People are all born
> with the same sense of morality or at least the "three basic ways the
> people have of defining what is right and wrong". I had no idea that
> morality can be classified in such a simple way. I went from almost
> countless ways down to three after reading one email!
Can you think of any others? I've never considered myself brilliant
in the philosophical realm, but am I not on to something here?
> Morality and religion share at least one attribute. It should stay
> private or at least shared among an consenting community. It absolutely
> should not be taught from a single, narrow interpretation which is
> assumed to be "common knowledge".
But then, on what principles do we base our concept of law? I think
you've illustrated nicely, with your Pat Robertson example, WHY we
have to have some kind of guiding philosophy to undergird our
legislation. That's why I mentioned consensus as one means.
> Atheists can have morals without religion. In fact, from the "black
> collar, police blotter" I included in my last post, religious people can
> often have no morals according to the interpretation assumed by their
> own religion.
Right on both counts. So how do we decide that pedophilia is wrong,
or that the using the counselor / client office for the purpose of
generating sexual favors is wrong? How do we determine that bilking
the public for money in stock manipulation, or selectively shutting
down power stations to drive up the price of electricity is wrong? On
what do we base those decisions?
We have a LONG history in the west of depending on religious thought
and philosophy to guide our thinking. Stating that we should
eliminate the influence of religion from government might be wise if
we wish to avoid the excesses of the past, but I think we need to be
careful not to dismiss the role of religion in developing a societal
consensus on what is right and what is wrong. I'm not sure you're
really disagreeing with me in this.
> Most importantly, a person with no morals (even as seen by
> the most popular interpretations) can be quite functional in society
> when they use a strictly economic philosophy in place of "morals" (i.e.
> If I don't hurt that person, it's probable that he won't hurt me/if I
> help that person, he might see me as an asset and invest time in helping
> me in order to preserve a relationship). Although I don't subscribe to
> this philosophy, I can't exclude it either.
Respectfully, Michael, I don't agree with that. You are defining a
moral principle by your example, one that is eclectic in nature for
sure (one of my three!), but certainly principled. A member of
society that has NO moral restraint is a very dangerous individual.
We call those people sociopaths for good reason!
> Now if you'll excuse me, I going to continue reading my book, Beyond
> Good and Evil. If only Nietzsche knew of the "three basic ways", He
> wouldn't have bothered with all that babble he went on about.
I haven't read Nietzche in YEARS! (I think the last work of his I
read was a translation of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra".) We can discuss
the concept of "ubermenschen" too, but even that concept has its roots
in the New Testament . . .
robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca
Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
