More like perspicacity... man

Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2010 at 9:21pm:


So are you saying that Einstein was wrong?

Human DNA is a pretty reasonable fixed point of reference. Our DNA, our social environment and our history together determine the make up of our working morality.  

The complexity of society nowadays means that we've progressed beyond simple morality, and we're now in the realms of risk assessment.

The old basic morality, as reflected in the Wiccan  "An it harm none, do as you will" (and you'll find this basic assumption in every major religion known to man) is a basic attribute of human society regardless of where you go in the world.  Added to this are the various laws of the myriad of religious and cultural traditions throughout the world.

Taken as the core of morality everywhere, it's all about minimising the risk of harm to individuals and to society on a local and global scale.

As soon as we introduced machinery that took actions thousands of times quicker than we could think, it rang the death knell for traditional absolute moralities.

A broker,  while selling shares can accidentally enter too many zeros on a computer and cause events that will cause the financial demise, and possibly death of thousands of people, but he can quite happily go to church afterwards, and believe that his actions did not break any moral code, and go on living a wholesome family life for all we know.  

If you want a pathway to modern morality, it's called risk management.  

Quote:


Gee, I hope that you aren't forgetting Soren that you have NO fixed point to your argument yourself?

Oh, so it is the God that you follow that decides all is it?
Let's face it, your fixed point is just a supposed 2000 yr. old idea of morality.
Don't go pretending that you understand the cosmos, becasue you know as well as everybody else that you are talking total bs.
Bring up another lie ansd tell it to that goon, whatever his name was.

Quote:


Nope, didn't see anytihng there , did you?

What was it?

Was it something outside the cosmos of understanding?

Amadd wrote on Jun 4^th, 2010 at 11:04am:



Here's a robust 'criticism' of not accepting a particular prescribed system of values:

On Tuesday, the Associated Free Press reported that Abdul Sattar Khawasi, deputy secretary of the Afghan lower house in parliament, called for the execution of Christian converts from Islam

The bit about 'christian converts' is scarcely relevant. What matters is the 'from Islam'.  Everyone is clear about what moral system the deputy is speaking out of.

Now go and equivocate between the deputy and the convert and tell us that since they are both religious, there is no discernible difference between them, as far as you are concerned.

If so, what moral system makes you treat both of them as equivocal? Just because they are both 'deluded', ie religious - is that enough for you to say that there is no difference between them?

And if you do differentiate - what is the ground on which you can make a distrinction? What makes you grant one of them  freedom of concience but not the other? If you do chose one, on what grounds? .

What is the source of your moral system that makes you think them either interchangable or distinguishable?

You just have to make a moral judgement. Can you? On what ground?i

muso wrote on Jun 7^th, 2010 at 2:15pm:



That second sentence is a mere personal opinion, according to the first. The 'totally' is just  bit of rhetorical flourish, not be given any weight.