Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
1) Can you really not think of a reason, apart from God Says So?

How about Baal Don't Lie?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How about Baal Don't Lie?

That. Is. Awesome.

I dunno about Spanky, but I feel bad when I hear about people I don't know being killed. I feel good when I help someone, even if I don't know her. It's odd I know, but in talking to other people, they feel similarly.

The devil, of course, is in the details, but I don't think that some higher power has something to do with it unless you define higher power as "humanity".

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I dunno about Spanky, but I feel bad when I hear about people I don't know being killed. I feel good when I help someone, even if I don't know her. It's odd I know, but in talking to other people, they feel similarly.

When loberry said Shape Shifter was dumbest it made me feel good. Does that mean I'm inhumane?

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Spanky
I believe it is wrong to kill innocent people. For some reason I think it is OK to kill cows, but not to kill people. I don't mind killing serial killers. Hitler thought he was doing the right think when he tried to exterminate the Jews.

All of which seems to point to the conclusion that there aren't, in fact, universal moral standards - you and many others think there are, but that is just a delusion. (In much the same way, basically, everyone here thinks that their position in any given argument is right and others only disagree because they don't fully understand it yet, but over time all sensible people will wake up and more or less agree.)

The idea that there is an objective universal truth to "morality" or whatever may be just a rationalization for feeling so strongly about something that you want to force everyone else to the same position. I think the problem you've discovered is that you have realized this is BS, but can't stomach the idea that something you feel so strongly about isn't, in fact, some great truth with an existence beyond yourself and your feelings.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
All of which seems to point to the conclusion that there aren't, in fact, universal moral standards - you and many others think there are, but that is just a delusion. (In much the same way, basically, everyone here thinks that their position in any given argument is right and others only disagree because they don't fully understand it yet, but over time all sensible people will wake up and more or less agree.)

The idea that there is an objective universal truth to "morality" or whatever may be just a rationalization for feeling so strongly about something that you want to force everyone else to the same position. I think the problem you've discovered is that you have realized this is BS, but can't stomach the idea that something you feel so strongly about isn't, in fact, some great truth with an existence beyond yourself and your feelings.

I haven't followed all this (and I say Praise the Lord for that), but if what you're say is that we don't need a universal standard to have either (i) God or (ii) morality, then I couldn't agree more. Perhaps God's way are not bound up in a dichotomy of good versus evil, and that an act may be good without being purely good (or the other way around).

Morality is, it strikes me, as much a social construct and need as one that is grounded in "truth". The idea that morality may itself be temporally and culturally bound doesn't, however, lessen the idea of its being moral. And the idea that God may be more of a way of life or a search than an absolute doesn't strike me as leaving some gaping gash needing to be filled.

But if no one can agree on something as being universally (as far as our world goes) bad, perhaps there is something that is universally or near universally good.

Now, I must go meditate.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I haven't followed all this (and I say Praise the Lord for that), but if what you're say is that we don't need a universal standard to have either (i) God or (ii) morality, then I couldn't agree more. Perhaps God's way are not bound up in a dichotomy of good versus evil, and that an act may be good without being purely good (or the other way around).

Morality is, it strikes me, as much a social construct and need as one that is grounded in "truth". The idea that morality may itself be temporally and culturally bound doesn't, however, lessen the idea of its being moral. And the idea that God may be more of a way of life or a search than an absolute doesn't strike me as leaving some gaping gash needing to be filled.

But if no one can agree on something as being universally (as far as our world goes) bad, perhaps there is something that is universally or near universally good.

Now, I must go meditate.

I think I remember that Spankmymonkey doesn't actually really work or something? So he should have time to read the three (3) philosophy reference guides mentioned in the review of the revised/updated edition of what his beloved Economist opines is the best of the three. He can then get back to us.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Killing children is bad.

Ah, a right to lifer among us! (Perhaps you'd like to join me for Mass some time?)

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Ah, a right to lifer among us! (Perhaps you'd like to join me for Mass some time?)

You and Spank[m]y[monkey], thinking that anyone who has any kind of moral compass whatsoever must therefore be interested in the whole "god" thing.

What do people think about this issue?

"The [Teamsters] union represents some 2,150 workers at the facilities. Atlanta-based CCE is independent from the Coca-Cola Co., but sells approximately 80 percent of its North American bottle and can volume. Union officials, in statements and interviews with BNA, linked the strike to objections to proposed premium increases for rank-and-file workers while CCE executives are given lavish compensation packages.

For example, IBT pointed to Summerfield Johnston Jr., a former chairman of the board who has a consulting contract with the company. According to Securities and Exchange Commission filings, Johnston receives $600,000 per year, a paid seat on the board of directors, health care coverage for life for himself and his dependants,* financial planning and tax benefit consulting, use of the company aircraft, an office including a secretary and office supplies, and restricted shares of company stock."

http://pubs.bna.com/ip/BNA/pbd.nsf/is/a0b0x2e1n5

*I didn't review the entire filing, but I believe that under the coverage, the company pays everything for the ex-board member and dependents -- they pay not one thin dime out of pocket. Sweet.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Ah, a right to lifer among us! (Perhaps you'd like to join me for Mass some time?)

Surely she didn't mean it as an absolute.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
If you are not going to read what I write don't comment on it. I have never asserted that a "Judeo-Christian model God is the the only supportable basis for an ethical moral code". You are making the classic straw man argument. You are assigining statements to me that I never made and then arguing against those statements.

When did I resist an acceptance of a pre-Jewish moral or ethical code. By stating there is a universal moral code, obviously, that predates the Jewish written law. I have never referred to Jew, Jewish, Christian or Christian when referring to the code. That is just an ignorant assumption you made on your part.

You have asserted repeatedly that there must be a divine source for a universal moral code. However, you also have repreatedly posited that any example of a society that is pre-Judeo-Christian is not one that had a valid universal moral code. Hence my inference.

If I misunderstood you, I apologize.

The argument, I find, is an important question, because how we feel about right and wrong usually forms the basis of our political philosophy. People are pointing out to me their theories on a non-divine basis for morality and I am simply explaining why have rejected those ideas. I am interested in their responses because I have been searching for a rational basis for morality but I have never found one that is convincing to me. The whole scientific rational process is proposing theories and then exposing those theories to tests (or criticisms) to see if they hold up. That is what I am doing here. Why do you have a problem with that? I would find it very interesting if someone came up with a nondivine basis for morality that I thought stood up to all the problems I have found with other theories. Clearly this whole discussion is way beyond you, so why don't you just ignore it. When people get bored with it they will simply stop responding to me. In the name of all that is holy, if you don't like this exchange why not leave it alone?

You have not really offered explanations. You have rejected rational arguments for the existence of a non-divine morality, you have acknowledged that they don't make sense to you, and you have repeated that your belief in a universal morality is based upon faith in a divine source.

My criticism of this process is that it keeps wandering down tangents. Once the tangents are stretched to the point where it becomes apparent they are not relevant to the question you posited, you then declare the non-relevance of the tangent to be proof of your hypothesis.

I was attempting to offer Chinaskian constructive criticism in suggesting that you step back, reformulate your hypothesis, and stick to that point. Doing so would allow you to respond to your issue, instead of arguing about things that are not apposite to your main hypothesis.

It is clear that my constructive criticism was not taken in the spirit in which it was intended. My bad. Please accept my apology.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
On the subject of Hank's Avatars - you need some new ones. You have recycled the ones you have a few times since I have been here. I used to look forward to seeing what your next one would be, but now it seems I have seen them all.

In board lingo, this is known as "phoning it in." Just trying to fill you in local custom. Namaste.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You and Spank[m]y[monkey], thinking that anyone who has any kind of moral compass whatsoever must therefore be interested in the whole "god" thing.

What do people think about this issue?

"The [Teamsters] union represents some 2,150 workers at the facilities. Atlanta-based CCE is independent from the Coca-Cola Co., but sells approximately 80 percent of its North American bottle and can volume. Union officials, in statements and interviews with BNA, linked the strike to objections to proposed premium increases for rank-and-file workers while CCE executives are given lavish compensation packages.

For example, IBT pointed to Summerfield Johnston Jr., a former chairman of the board who has a consulting contract with the company. According to Securities and Exchange Commission filings, Johnston receives $600,000 per year, a paid seat on the board of directors, health care coverage for life for himself and his dependants,* financial planning and tax benefit consulting, use of the company aircraft, an office including a secretary and office supplies, and restricted shares of company stock."

http://pubs.bna.com/ip/BNA/pbd.nsf/is/a0b0x2e1n5

*I didn't review the entire filing, but I believe that under the coverage, the company pays everything for the ex-board member and dependents -- they pay not one thin dime out of pocket. Sweet.

IBT and Johnston are evil and I want a similar contract.

I trust he needs to do very little for the $600,000, other than toe the management line at board meetings?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why does it need a source other than their own reason? If everything needs a prior source, again you've set up the argumetn so there's only one answer.

Or maybe I should just ask you what the source of any religion's moral code is? Is "God told Moses" a satisfactory answer to you?

Nope. Too Judeo-Christian.

[ltl/fb]

He looks like the cartoon character that is a dog and a sheriff. What is that character's name??



Fucking red X. The picture on this page: http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Bush_Administration/

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You have asserted repeatedly that there must be a divine source for a universal moral code. However, you also have repreatedly posited that any example of a society that is pre-Judeo-Christian is not one that had a valid universal moral code.

Actually I thought at times he was saying 1 morality came from god but 2 morality has improved over time.

Those seem contradictory- like shouldn't we have been better when the actual instruction from God was more recent?