XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, talk.religion.misc
From: colanth@pern.invalid
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 10:36:29 +0100, "Humaan" wrote:
>I wish you had read my posts.
>Part of what I have posted says that there are differing views on what is
>good and moral.
Yes - religibots each have their holy books telling them different
things. Moral people all agree. It's like temperature - a red hot
piece of steel is too hot to be comfortable, a piece of dry ice is too
cold to be comfortable, there's no disagreement. Unless one has no
temperature-sensing nerve ending.
>Put another way, there is no absolute truth.
Of course not. Whether eating a zebra is moral or not is relative to
whether you're a lion or a zebra.
>If one society allows for torture and justifies it because it works
torture is immoral, whether "one society" allows it or not.
>or another declares Jews Slavs Gypsies, Union leaders etc.,to be less than
>human, then where is your "Moral people *know* " getting you?
Moral people know the difference. That you can't tell the difference
without a book telling you is an indication that you're amoral.
>Our societies are not good and moral by default.
Societies aren't in the class of things that have morality (or lack of
it). Out thoughts are neither wet nor dry, so claiming that our
thoughts aren't wet is meaningless noise.
>Qe have to understand
>where our definitions have emerged from and the context they appeared
>in too.
They evolved. The same as our other properties.
>There will never be a situation where all questions can be answered, and
>there is always a need for judgment.
Which is irrelevant to the question of how a person with no
understanding of morals can question morality. (Doing the right thing
because you've been taught that it's the right thing isn't morality,
it's education.)
--
Buddhist to hot dog vendor, Make me One with Everything
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
