26 Jul 06
Originally posted by David CHe's merely demonstrating that morality is ever-changing...
Nonsense. He's merely demonstrating that morality is ever-changing, and judging the morality of the Dark Ages (derived ENTIRELY from the christian bible, I'll remind you) by today's moral standards. Unenlightened they were, wouldn't you agree? If you don't, I'll have you burnt at the stake, BTW.
Then he (and you) has no way of knowing that he is right. If morality is an ever-changing maelstrom of emotional/rational guesswork, the words "right" and "wrong" hold no value other than voicing the fashionable preference of the time. And like fashions, you can't find one superior to the other -- unless it bares more skin.
(derived ENTIRELY from the christian bible, I'll remind you)
Puleeese! Lets see... "love your neighbour as yourself -- unless he's a Saracen, in which case: kill the b@stard!". I've given the one contrary example to prove your universal statement wrong. There are many more where that came from.
Unenlightened they were, wouldn't you agree? If you don't, I'll have you burnt at the stake, BTW.
Careful. You're again straying towards an absolute moral standard.
26 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou don't have to be amoral to make an accurate observation!
You don't have to be amoral to make an accurate observation! As for his evident moral outrage, he can justify it for himself.
It's not getting through; let me try shouting it: YOU NEED AN ABSOLUTE POINT OF REFERENCE TO MAKE AN ACCURATE OBSERVATION!!!
26 Jul 06
3 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagec:\Aaarrrrrghhh!!!!
You're getting frustrated with me--is that accurate?
Error. Bad command or file name.
c:\BdN_is_the_pimple_on_the_face_of_this_forum.exe
File updated to pockmark.exe
c:\
EDIT: I'm sorry. I'm feeling particularly mischievous today. Take it all with a little levity.
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by HalitoseYour observation is inaccurate. I am but one pimple in a forum scarred with acne.
c:\Aaarrrrrghhh!!!!
Error. Bad command or file name.
c:\BdN_is_the_pimple_on_the_face_of_this_forum.exe
File updated to pockmark.exe
c:\
EDIT: I'm sorry. I'm feeling particularly mischievous today. Take it all with a little levity.
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by HalitoseGetting back to this, your sound-bark--
Halitose - A guy with too much bark than bite: bambi on testosterone... 😉
YOU NEED AN ABSOLUTE POINT OF REFERENCE TO MAKE AN ACCURATE OBSERVATION--
as far as I know, it is impossible to have an absolute point of reference because of the observer effect.
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageEinstein's Theory of Relativity relates to physics, not ethics.
Getting back to this, your sound-bark--
YOU NEED AN ABSOLUTE POINT OF REFERENCE TO MAKE AN ACCURATE OBSERVATION--
as far as I know, it is impossible to have an absolute point of reference because of the observer effect.
27 Jul 06
Originally posted by HalitoseIt occurs to me that you're quite happy to talk about the ethical ramifications of Darwin's theory, but Einstein's doesn't count. Interesting. Be that as it may--I hold that a person's relative position in space and time does indeed affect their moral choices, given that their unique position in the continuum implies a unique moral choice for every given situation. In other words, your choices are never identical. Now you can apply a general rule to a particular situation, but you have to take the particular circumstances of each case into account.
Einstein's Theory of Relativity relates to physics, not ethics.
Perhaps this is neither here nor there. How does a conscience operate?