> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Wednesday, 3 February 2016 06:14:00 UTC+11, John Devereux wrote:
>>> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 01/31/2016 06:31 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>>>> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> Wrote in message:
>>>>>> On 01/31/2016 04:43 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>>>>>> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> Wrote in
>>>>>>> message:
>>>>>>>> On 01/31/2016 03:42 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You've already said that you're a moral relativist, so there's
>>>>>>>>>> no use appealing to your better nature. ;)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> True, but it doesn't seem to stop people from trying...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A lot of moral relativists are much better than their principles,
>>>>>>>> and I hope you're one. The principles themselves are so bad that
>>>>>>>> it's scarcely possible for someone to be worse.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I try very hard to deal only with straight shooters. I've had to
>>>>>>>> fire customers who weren't, and I certainly wouldn't knowingly work
>>>>>>>> with someone whose moral ideas were controlled by his own
>>>>>>>> convenience.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Phil Hobbs
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The weird thing is, regardless of my moral relativism, I seem to
>>>>>>> generally behave in a moral fashion. But I couldn't tell you exactly
>>>>>>> why. Guess I had those messages drilled into me real good and I
>>>>>>> can't handle the cognitive dissonance. I catch spiders and gently put
>>>>>>> them outside.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which does make you better than your principles, at least part of the
>>>>>> time. You might want to inquire--as a matter of some urgency--where
>>>>>> that higher moral law (for that is what it is) that judges your
>>>>>> intentions comes from.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A higher moral law giving humans free will, but then essentially
>>>>> revoking it in the same breath by dictating that there will be
>>>>> horrible consequences for not using it in the appropriate
>>>>> fashion, and then giving the players no option whether the wish
>>>>> to play or not (being born) seems like a rather perverse game.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know anybody who advances such a worldview. Do you?
>>>
>>> Is that not essentially the standard Christian world view? You go to
>>> hell if you are a non-believer/sinner, go to heaven if you are a
>>> believer and repent your sins?
>>
>> Dante's world view included purgatory, where you went to get persuaded
>> to repent of your sins.
>
> I always thought that was for babies or some such. Those who had never
> had an *opportunity* to Believe. But apparently not according to wiki
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory
>
> "Only those who die in the state of grace but have not in life reached a
> sufficient level of holiness can be in Purgatory, and therefore no one
> in Purgatory will remain forever in that state or go to hell"
>
And here I thought it was in Colorado.
>> The local theologians of his time were in the habit of selling
>> services of absolution for the dead, so that the living relatives
>> could buy the dead out of purgatory into heaven.
>
>> Luther was quite rude about that, but then Calvinists believed in
>> predestination, which made sincere repentance something that had been
>> programmed into the sinner at birth (not that Luther was a Calvinist).
>
--
Les Cargill
Reply by John Devereux●February 3, 20162016-02-03
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wednesday, 3 February 2016 06:14:00 UTC+11, John Devereux wrote:
>> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> writes:
>>
>> > On 01/31/2016 06:31 PM, bitrex wrote:
>> >> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> Wrote in message:
>> >>> On 01/31/2016 04:43 PM, bitrex wrote:
>> >>>> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> Wrote in
>> >>>> message:
>> >>>>> On 01/31/2016 03:42 PM, bitrex wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> You've already said that you're a moral relativist, so there's
>> >>>>>>> no use appealing to your better nature. ;)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> True, but it doesn't seem to stop people from trying...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> A lot of moral relativists are much better than their principles,
>> >>>>> and I hope you're one. The principles themselves are so bad that
>> >>>>> it's scarcely possible for someone to be worse.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I try very hard to deal only with straight shooters. I've had to
>> >>>>> fire customers who weren't, and I certainly wouldn't knowingly work
>> >>>>> with someone whose moral ideas were controlled by his own
>> >>>>> convenience.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Cheers
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Phil Hobbs
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The weird thing is, regardless of my moral relativism, I seem to
>> >>>> generally behave in a moral fashion. But I couldn't tell you exactly
>> >>>> why. Guess I had those messages drilled into me real good and I
>> >>>> can't handle the cognitive dissonance. I catch spiders and gently put
>> >>>> them outside.
>> >>>
>> >>> Which does make you better than your principles, at least part of the
>> >>> time. You might want to inquire--as a matter of some urgency--where
>> >>> that higher moral law (for that is what it is) that judges your
>> >>> intentions comes from.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> A higher moral law giving humans free will, but then essentially
>> >> revoking it in the same breath by dictating that there will be
>> >> horrible consequences for not using it in the appropriate
>> >> fashion, and then giving the players no option whether the wish
>> >> to play or not (being born) seems like a rather perverse game.
>> >
>> > I don't know anybody who advances such a worldview. Do you?
>>
>> Is that not essentially the standard Christian world view? You go to
>> hell if you are a non-believer/sinner, go to heaven if you are a
>> believer and repent your sins?
>
> Dante's world view included purgatory, where you went to get persuaded
> to repent of your sins.
I always thought that was for babies or some such. Those who had never
had an *opportunity* to Believe. But apparently not according to wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory
"Only those who die in the state of grace but have not in life reached a
sufficient level of holiness can be in Purgatory, and therefore no one
in Purgatory will remain forever in that state or go to hell"
> The local theologians of his time were in the habit of selling
> services of absolution for the dead, so that the living relatives
> could buy the dead out of purgatory into heaven.
> Luther was quite rude about that, but then Calvinists believed in
> predestination, which made sincere repentance something that had been
> programmed into the sinner at birth (not that Luther was a Calvinist).
--
John Devereux
Reply by Bill Sloman●February 2, 20162016-02-02
On Wednesday, 3 February 2016 06:14:00 UTC+11, John Devereux wrote:
> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> writes:
>
> > On 01/31/2016 06:31 PM, bitrex wrote:
> >> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> Wrote in message:
> >>> On 01/31/2016 04:43 PM, bitrex wrote:
> >>>> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> Wrote in
> >>>> message:
> >>>>> On 01/31/2016 03:42 PM, bitrex wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You've already said that you're a moral relativist, so there's
> >>>>>>> no use appealing to your better nature. ;)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> True, but it doesn't seem to stop people from trying...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A lot of moral relativists are much better than their principles,
> >>>>> and I hope you're one. The principles themselves are so bad that
> >>>>> it's scarcely possible for someone to be worse.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I try very hard to deal only with straight shooters. I've had to
> >>>>> fire customers who weren't, and I certainly wouldn't knowingly work
> >>>>> with someone whose moral ideas were controlled by his own
> >>>>> convenience.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Phil Hobbs
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The weird thing is, regardless of my moral relativism, I seem to
> >>>> generally behave in a moral fashion. But I couldn't tell you exactly
> >>>> why. Guess I had those messages drilled into me real good and I
> >>>> can't handle the cognitive dissonance. I catch spiders and gently put
> >>>> them outside.
> >>>
> >>> Which does make you better than your principles, at least part of the
> >>> time. You might want to inquire--as a matter of some urgency--where
> >>> that higher moral law (for that is what it is) that judges your
> >>> intentions comes from.
> >>>
> >>
> >> A higher moral law giving humans free will, but then essentially
> >> revoking it in the same breath by dictating that there will be
> >> horrible consequences for not using it in the appropriate
> >> fashion, and then giving the players no option whether the wish
> >> to play or not (being born) seems like a rather perverse game.
> >
> > I don't know anybody who advances such a worldview. Do you?
>
> Is that not essentially the standard Christian world view? You go to
> hell if you are a non-believer/sinner, go to heaven if you are a
> believer and repent your sins?
Dante's world view included purgatory, where you went to get persuaded to repent of your sins. The local theologians of his time were in the habit of selling services of absolution for the dead, so that the living relatives could buy the dead out of purgatory into heaven.
Luther was quite rude about that, but then Calvinists believed in predestination, which made sincere repentance something that had been programmed into the sinner at birth (not that Luther was a Calvinist).
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by Bill Sloman●February 2, 20162016-02-02
On Wednesday, 3 February 2016 02:30:46 UTC+11, bitrex wrote:
> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > On Monday, 1 February 2016 12:45:26 UTC+11, bitrex wrote:
> >> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> Wrote in message:
> >> > On 01/31/2016 06:24 PM, bitrex wrote:
> >> >> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> Wrote in
> >> >> message:
> >> >>> On 01/31/2016 04:43 PM, bitrex wrote:
> >> >>>> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> Wrote in
> >> >>>> message:
> >> >>>>> On 01/31/2016 03:42 PM, bitrex wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> You've already said that you're a moral relativist, so
> >> >>>>>>> there's no use appealing to your better nature. ;)
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> True, but it doesn't seem to stop people from trying...
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> A lot of moral relativists are much better than their
> >> >>>>> principles, and I hope you're one. The principles themselves
> >> >>>>> are so bad that it's scarcely possible for someone to be
> >> >>>>> worse.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I try very hard to deal only with straight shooters. I've had
> >> >>>>> to fire customers who weren't, and I certainly wouldn't
> >> >>>>> knowingly work with someone whose moral ideas were controlled
> >> >>>>> by his own convenience.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> The weird thing is, regardless of my moral relativism, I seem to
> >> >>>> generally behave in a moral fashion. But I couldn't tell you
> >> >>>> exactly why. Guess I had those messages drilled into me real good
> >> >>>> and I can't handle the cognitive dissonance. I catch spiders and
> >> >>>> gently put them outside.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Which does make you better than your principles, at least part of
> >> >>> the time. You might want to inquire--as a matter of some
> >> >>> urgency--where that higher moral law (for that is what it is) that
> >> >>> judges your intentions comes from.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> But given some of the horrible experiences I've had in life, I
> >> >>>> find it very difficult to believe that morality is anything
> >> >>>> innate or universal. At the end of the day, the Universe doesn't
> >> >>>> care.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> One of the many problems with that view is the immense agreement
> >> >>> between people of all eras and all places on what is and is not OK.
> >> >>> There are disagreements at the edges, e.g. whether you have to be
> >> >>> unselfish towards everybody or just your own
> >> >>> family/tribe/clan/nation, or whether you can have one wife or
> >> >>> five.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> But I claim that you can't actually imagine a society that
> >> >>> sincerely admired people who ran away in battle, or who
> >> >>> double-crossed all their friends, for instance.
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, yeah, a society made completely of atavistic sociopaths
> >> >> wouldn't last very long.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the difference between
> >> > "ought to be" and "is".
> >> >
> >> >> But then that means at some level morality is something that must
> >> >> evolve parallel to humans living in societies at all, which means it
> >> >> must stem from a particular society. i.e. it's not a universal innate
> >> >> quality of humans.
> >
> > Since monkeys and apes have ideas about fairness, it's very likely that at least some of what we have is a universal innate quality of humans.
>
> Chimpanzees do seem to have some conceptions of fairness, as in if
> they see the other ape taking food from their tray unfairly when
> they're not getting any (in an experiment designed to test this)
> they'll flip the tray and trash it.
>
> But monkeys and apes live in societies. Not terribly sophisticated
> ones, but societies nonetheless. Some of them even make
> tools!
>
> And IIRC chimps are pretty poor at cooperation. If there's a heavy
> rock on a bucket of food just large enough that only two apes can
> move it they'll go and try to get a human to move it if there's
> one around, but if it's just two apes they'll sit around all day
> scratching their heads not knowing what to do.
>
> >> > But that's contrary to the evidence. You're a victim of your
> >> > preconceptions.
> >>
> >> There's a book I like about what humans are "naturally" like when
> >> freed from societal pressure.
> >>
> >> It's called "Lord of the Flies"
> >
> > It actually about school-boys, and it's a fable, not a documentary.
>
> If people didn't often use art to get at essential "truths", most
> art would be pretty bad.
But art tends to depicts the artist's idea of what constitutes an essential truth. Compare and contrast Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" and George Orwell's "1984". George Orwell wrote his book in 1948, and William Golding wrote "Lord of the Flies" in 1954, and both are pretty pessimistic.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by Clifford Heath●February 2, 20162016-02-02
On 03/02/16 06:13, John Devereux wrote:
> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> writes:
>>> A higher moral law giving humans free will, but then essentially
>>> revoking it in the same breath by dictating that there will be
>>> horrible consequences for not using it in the appropriate
>>> fashion, and then giving the players no option whether the wish
>>> to play or not (being born) seems like a rather perverse game.
>> I don't know anybody who advances such a worldview. Do you?
> Is that not essentially the standard Christian world view? You go to
> hell if you are a non-believer/sinner, go to heaven if you are a
> believer and repent your sins?
All institutions are intrinsically coercive. It's why institutions are
formed. Someone realizes that one of their ideas is not universally
held, and that threatens their security, their self-belief, their view
of truth. So they enlist others who support them and create barriers and
divisions between "them" and "us", and an institution is born. Come join
our club, all you have to do is believe in *X*, and you can be one of
us, protected by the group from the very uncertainty of the idea that
unites us.
The distinction between religions and other institutions is that
religions play the "eternity" card. Join us or your immortal soul is
under threat, you'll suffer *forever*! It's such a weak card of course,
because it's so apparent that we die, we rot, we are temporary. Because
this card is so weak, it requires the most strenuous support, the most
creative fantasies, the deepest self-deceptions. It leads to the
greatest perversities and injustice.
And that pretty-much explains the world in which we find ourselves.
Clifford Heath
Reply by Clifford Heath●February 2, 20162016-02-02
On 03/02/16 05:23, bitrex wrote:
> Humans seem pretty geared to essentialism. You're in or you're
> out! With me or against me. You is or you ain't.
From the other side of the Pacific, that looks like a dominant American
trait, rather than a human one. I'm sure there are societies which are
even more polarized, but none so large and powerful.
How else could you explain Trump's popularity?
It's just simplism, primitivism, to see everything in black and white.
Maturity is when you start to see issues in more than one dimension.
Reply by Clifford Heath●February 2, 20162016-02-02
On 03/02/16 02:30, bitrex wrote:
> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> On Monday, 1 February 2016 12:45:26 UTC+11, bitrex wrote:
>>> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> Wrote in message:
>>>> On 01/31/2016 06:24 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>>>> Well, yeah, a society made completely of atavistic sociopaths
>>>>> wouldn't last very long.
Including the Lord of the Flies society. The book ends in primitivism,
but had the story continued, there would rapidly have been either
complete dispersion and death, or renewed order and cooperation, though
probably at a lower level than the society the boys were born into.
>>>> I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the difference between
>>>> "ought to be" and "is".
>>>>> But then that means at some level morality is something that must
>>>>> evolve parallel to humans living in societies at all, which means it
>>>>> must stem from a particular society. i.e. it's not a universal innate
>>>>> quality of humans.
>> Since monkeys and apes have ideas about fairness, it's very likely that at least some of what we have is a universal innate quality of humans.
> Chimpanzees do seem to have some conceptions of fairness...
> But monkeys and apes live in societies. Not terribly sophisticated
> ones, but societies nonetheless.
There are bats who will share a meal, but won't share with other bats
that have a record of not sharing. That is, they keep score
individually, using a scale of fairness.
Morality is a social construct, but the idea of fairness arises
naturally, even for bats. "Did I receive as much food previously as
those I'm sharing with now?" requires only a single variable of storage
(an IIR filtered "proportion").
Morality draws increasingly fine distinctions ("with whom should I
share?") that require counting and scoring things that are not directly
linked to physical evidence. One tribal society in New Guinea had
evolved a morality which placed treachery as their highest ideal - as
long as the treachery involved a member of the tribe down the river.
They referred to their cannibalistic game of befriending someone before
eating them as "fattening with friendship for the slaughter". Needless
to say the missionaries were bemused at their intense admiration for
Judas! He was their true hero of the story. (Read the story in "Peace
Child").
The point is that the universality of the concept of fairness should not
be used to support the idea of universal morals. Morals are based in
social pragmatism, nothing more.
Clifford Heath.
Reply by Lasse Langwadt Christensen●February 2, 20162016-02-02
Den tirsdag den 2. februar 2016 kl. 20.14.00 UTC+1 skrev John Devereux:
> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> writes:
>
> > On 01/31/2016 06:31 PM, bitrex wrote:
> >> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> Wrote in message:
> >>> On 01/31/2016 04:43 PM, bitrex wrote:
> >>>> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> Wrote in
> >>>> message:
> >>>>> On 01/31/2016 03:42 PM, bitrex wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You've already said that you're a moral relativist, so there's
> >>>>>>> no use appealing to your better nature. ;)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> True, but it doesn't seem to stop people from trying...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A lot of moral relativists are much better than their principles,
> >>>>> and I hope you're one. The principles themselves are so bad that
> >>>>> it's scarcely possible for someone to be worse.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I try very hard to deal only with straight shooters. I've had to
> >>>>> fire customers who weren't, and I certainly wouldn't knowingly work
> >>>>> with someone whose moral ideas were controlled by his own
> >>>>> convenience.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Phil Hobbs
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The weird thing is, regardless of my moral relativism, I seem to
> >>>> generally behave in a moral fashion. But I couldn't tell you exactly
> >>>> why. Guess I had those messages drilled into me real good and I
> >>>> can't handle the cognitive dissonance. I catch spiders and gently put
> >>>> them outside.
> >>>
> >>> Which does make you better than your principles, at least part of the
> >>> time. You might want to inquire--as a matter of some urgency--where
> >>> that higher moral law (for that is what it is) that judges your
> >>> intentions comes from.
> >>>
> >>
> >> A higher moral law giving humans free will, but then essentially
> >> revoking it in the same breath by dictating that there will be
> >> horrible consequences for not using it in the appropriate
> >> fashion, and then giving the players no option whether the wish
> >> to play or not (being born) seems like a rather perverse game.
> >
> > I don't know anybody who advances such a worldview. Do you?
>
> Is that not essentially the standard Christian world view? You go to
> hell if you are a non-believer/sinner, go to heaven if you are a
> believer and repent your sins?
that goes for most religions
you could take the dark view that most religions are preoccupied with
getting life over with, breaking as few rules as possible, so you can
die and go to a much better place
-Lasse
Reply by John Devereux●February 2, 20162016-02-02
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> writes:
> On 01/31/2016 06:31 PM, bitrex wrote:
>> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> Wrote in message:
>>> On 01/31/2016 04:43 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>>> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> Wrote in
>>>> message:
>>>>> On 01/31/2016 03:42 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've already said that you're a moral relativist, so there's
>>>>>>> no use appealing to your better nature. ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True, but it doesn't seem to stop people from trying...
>>>>>
>>>>> A lot of moral relativists are much better than their principles,
>>>>> and I hope you're one. The principles themselves are so bad that
>>>>> it's scarcely possible for someone to be worse.
>>>>>
>>>>> I try very hard to deal only with straight shooters. I've had to
>>>>> fire customers who weren't, and I certainly wouldn't knowingly work
>>>>> with someone whose moral ideas were controlled by his own
>>>>> convenience.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil Hobbs
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The weird thing is, regardless of my moral relativism, I seem to
>>>> generally behave in a moral fashion. But I couldn't tell you exactly
>>>> why. Guess I had those messages drilled into me real good and I
>>>> can't handle the cognitive dissonance. I catch spiders and gently put
>>>> them outside.
>>>
>>> Which does make you better than your principles, at least part of the
>>> time. You might want to inquire--as a matter of some urgency--where
>>> that higher moral law (for that is what it is) that judges your
>>> intentions comes from.
>>>
>>
>> A higher moral law giving humans free will, but then essentially
>> revoking it in the same breath by dictating that there will be
>> horrible consequences for not using it in the appropriate
>> fashion, and then giving the players no option whether the wish
>> to play or not (being born) seems like a rather perverse game.
>
> I don't know anybody who advances such a worldview. Do you?
Is that not essentially the standard Christian world view? You go to
hell if you are a non-believer/sinner, go to heaven if you are a
believer and repent your sins?
[...]
--
John Devereux
Reply by bitrex●February 2, 20162016-02-02
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> On Monday, 1 February 2016 11:13:12 UTC+11, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> On 01/31/2016 06:31 PM, bitrex wrote:
>> > Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> Wrote in message:
>> >> On 01/31/2016 04:43 PM, bitrex wrote:
>> >>> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> Wrote in
>> >>> message:
>> >>>> On 01/31/2016 03:42 PM, bitrex wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> You've already said that you're a moral relativist, so there's
>> >>>>>> no use appealing to your better nature. ;)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> True, but it doesn't seem to stop people from trying...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> A lot of moral relativists are much better than their principles,
>> >>>> and I hope you're one. The principles themselves are so bad that
>> >>>> it's scarcely possible for someone to be worse.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I try very hard to deal only with straight shooters. I've had to
>> >>>> fire customers who weren't, and I certainly wouldn't knowingly work
>> >>>> with someone whose moral ideas were controlled by his own
>> >>>> convenience.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Cheers
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Phil Hobbs
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> The weird thing is, regardless of my moral relativism, I seem to
>> >>> generally behave in a moral fashion. But I couldn't tell you exactly
>> >>> why. Guess I had those messages drilled into me real good and I
>> >>> can't handle the cognitive dissonance. I catch spiders and gently put
>> >>> them outside.
>> >>
>> >> Which does make you better than your principles, at least part of the
>> >> time. You might want to inquire--as a matter of some urgency--where
>> >> that higher moral law (for that is what it is) that judges your
>> >> intentions comes from.
>> >>
>> >
>> > A higher moral law giving humans free will, but then essentially
>> > revoking it in the same breath by dictating that there will be
>> > horrible consequences for not using it in the appropriate
>> > fashion, and then giving the players no option whether the wish
>> > to play or not (being born) seems like a rather perverse game.
>>
>> I don't know anybody who advances such a worldview. Do you?
>>
>> > You might sometimes question the sanity of whatever moral
>> > authority wants to run that one.
>>
>> If there were such a person, I certainly would. But there isn't, as far
>> as I know.
>>
>> >
>> > But yeah, I'm pretty sure that if there was a Son of God, Christ
>> > was a good candidate. Tell people to love each other, get nailed
>> > to a cross? Sure. Sounds like just the sort of thing people would
>> > do.
>>
>> Absolutely. But He also exhibited what love looked like in an
>> altogether unique way. Hint: it isn't always about making nice. If
>> your teenage daughter is a heroin addict, you don't say, "That's lovely,
>> dear, have a good time shooting up in the back alley." Sin is like
>> that--harmful from the beginning, and in the end, lethal.
>
> Shooting up in a back alley isn't a good way of being a heroin addict. Medical professionals who can get pure heroin and clean needles can sustain a habit for years, then kick it when they grow out of it without showing any visible signs of damage.
>
> Making heroin addiction a dangerous vice may not be the best way to cope with it. The Dutch go in for "harm reduction" - once you are registered as an addict you can get get your fix on a regular basis. You have to take it under supervision, so you can't sell it to somebody else. It seems to work, and makes drug-dealing less profitable for the dealers.
>
> The US ran it's "Great Experiment" with prohibiting ethanol, and worked out that it didn't work. Sadly, they don't seem to have noticed that the result generalises to other recreational drugs.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney
Yeah, some Americans still try prohibition with bodily functions
like sex as the primary line of defense.
Humans seem pretty geared to essentialism. You're in or you're
out! With me or against me. You is or you ain't.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/