Path: typhoon.sonic.net!feed.news.sonic.net!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: paulhume@comcast.net (Paul Hume) Newsgroups: alt.pagan,alt.religion.wicca,uk.religion.pagan,alt.startrek.vs.starwars,alt.chaos,alt.space.monkey.invaders,alt.bible Subject: Re: Silly Religion Date: 28 Jul 2003 10:06:10 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 55 Message-ID: References: <4806bb2c.0307202009.ebd9ef3@posting.google.com> <1105fd88.0307210940.129045b9@posting.google.com> <57bf3ff978d5a346b6902f9f5fdc022e@free.teranews.com> <864bfb2c3f2d07a1ffca38b344106e0e@free.teranews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.107.93.163 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1059411971 30956 127.0.0.1 (28 Jul 2003 17:06:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Jul 2003 17:06:11 GMT Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.pagan:362038 alt.religion.wicca:722503 uk.religion.pagan:145618 alt.startrek.vs.starwars:345947 alt.chaos:15032 alt.bible:722904 > How does 'reason' know what morals are 'good' or 'evil', since there is no > good or evil without God. You seem to disagree that there can be a rational basis for designating actions as good or evil unless there is a religious mandate to do so. Yet systems of ethical philosophy have done so for centuries. Indeed, man ethical philosophers have tackled the question to examine whether one can have a consistent system of ethics outside of a religious context. Rational bases for ethical systems include: - the well being and stability of the community - the well being and quality of life of offspring - insuring the well being of others to insure one's own etc... Yet you seem to want to assert that honor, or responsibility, or even enlightened self interest cannot provide a firm basis for ethical judgements, but that ethics must be imposed from "outside" the individual, and indeed, are only effective when backed with an explicit or implicit threat of Divine punishment for unethical actions. > So someone who reasoned a conclusion is never wrong? What if I felt it was > morally reasonable for me to kill you for no purpose. Would that be okay? You would need to demosntrate that this was essential to your own well-being, AND explain why it was not all right for someone else to kill you at whim (unless it IS all right for someone else to kill you at whim). You would need to demonstrate how these decisions preserve your own existence, advance the goals of the community, and indeed, why they serve the purposes of the person you kill. You seem you have not demonstrated that it is morally reasonable for you to kill your correspondent. You have merely posited "what if" it is morally reasonable to do so. Is such action commensurate with the events surrounding it, for example? Does it overrule the claim society has placed upon preserving the life of its members? Is the only reason not to kill at whim because of the Decalogue? (Or the Dhammapadda, or the Vedas, or other religious instructions which take a dim view of killing at whim). If your view is that humans are only capable of ethical action under threat of divine punishment, then you need to make that clear - most of your posts, forgive me, seem to be saying that if that factor is absent, there is no other reason for moral action, which is inane. It is a moral system that a five year old, or a thwarted criminal adult, might adopt - "if only I wouldn't get punished for being bad, I would be so bad" - but it speaks more to their stunted ethical judgement that it does to the ethics of more mature individuals around them. Paul