Posted on 08/29/2006 6:51:14 AM PDT by headsonpikes
We all know the basic alternatives that form the familiar "spectrum" of American politics and culture.
If a young person is turned off by religion or attracted by the achievements of science, and he wants to embrace a secular outlook, he is told--by both sides of the debate--that his place is with the collectivists and social subjectivists of the left. On the other hand, if he admires the free market and wants America to have a bold, independent national defense, then he is told--again, by both sides--that his natural home is with the religious right.
But what if all of this is terribly wrong? What if it's possible to hold some of the key convictions associated with the right, being pro-free-market and supporting the war, and even to do so more strongly and consistently than most on the right--but still to be secular? What if it's possible to reject the socialism subjectivism of the left and believe in the importance of morality, but without believing in God? ....
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
That was a legitimate question.
I don't have the answer either. I also don't pretend I do.
In the absence of right and wrong it might be.
I would never kill anyone because of my morality, but if I had no morality, I might kill you for disagreeing with me if I felt like it and thought I would suffer no ill consequences to myself.
But even though you try to personalize it, the truth is, you know that there are millions and millions of people who do that very thing all the time. The history of the world is nothing but the story of people killing each other and taking each other's stuff.
How will you know who the "good guys" are? The "enemy" will be the ones that could cost you your favorite piece of the federal pie. Which side of this shooting-type civil war will you be on?
That doesn't make any sense unless you're interested in winning elections and promulgating conservative principles and programs. And obviously we can't have that, now can we?
You assume everyone is trying to get along with people in the easiest way. Bad assumption. Many are trying to figure out how to do whatever they want to other people.
Are they right or wrong?
Are irrational people right or wrong in doing whatever they want to do without regard to others?
You omitted the most likely case: both exist, and you will be drafted into the army of the one you choose during life.
Atheists will spend eternity in Canada.
Nope. Evolved societal right and wrongs that is required for any society to exist. We developed those as a necessity to species survival.
Since our understanding of the universe was pretty primitive, we “invented” deities to describe or enforce such. I also believe much of the deification thru history was either a power play by folks as they developed organized religions or a god-in-the-gaps mentality. And back then, basically it was almost all “gaps”.
IMHO even emotions, such as love, compassion, etc are strictly evolutionary developments.
More personal questions? You have an unusual interest in my personal opinions, quite odd in a larger philosophical discussion.
My authority is God. But it's irrelevant to the larger questions.
No, your authority for thinking it is immoral to torture animals.
Nice try. I believe it is immoral because of GOD, not for the reasons you made up and tried to attribute to me.
I think you might mean "latin." And the "pagans" in the mythical Dark Ages you suggest (I guess pre-400 AD?) weren't sufficiently organized to have much of any law beyond the tribal and primitive. Literacy would drive the organization of law.
I don't really understand your gripe--and I don't hear much from Christians about English Common Law one way or the other as any kind of "argument to authority".
The English got their legal traditions much the same way as the rest of Europe--from the influence of the Roman Catholic Church, it's power and clergy. But the English colonized the US, so our law system would be informed by the English style.
Oh, dear - these matrices are getting complicated...
We both knew that or you would have tried to answer instead of wasting bandwidth trying to play "gotcha" with people who actually are trying to discuss the most important issue of all time.
I also don't pretend I do.
Good, it wouldn't have worked.
God, I told you that. The holy spirit to be more precise.
But you remain focused on personal beliefs. Individual beliefs do not make right or wrong anymore than groups of people do.
You are conflating "one-shot" game theory with iterated game theory. Iterated game theory converges on the same strategies regardless of starting position, and real life is definitely iterated in nature. Hence why morality grounded in game theory generates simple universal strategies (like the Golden Rule).
That sounds well and good but consider: Game theory would say that a person in a position of power should do whatever is necessary to stay in that position. This includes killing the opposition as long as doing so increases the ability to stay in power.
Ummm, game theory does not say that generally. In fact, there is only one mathematical assumption that I can think of that could lead to this strategy being optimal, and it does not apply to human societies.
Generally not in any kind of game theoretic sense. Quite the opposite in fact.
Zeus is going to be really pissed when he catches up with Pascal... ;)
Which ought to give the religious some cause for pause, since it demonstrates that people tend to believe anything coming down the pike.
Anyhow, interestingly, even totalitarian leaders see the benefit in keeping their subjects from killing each other. It is just such an obvious benefit for all concerned that there really is no need to appeal to the existence of an intercessionary supreme being for the natural behavior of rational beings to recognize and enforce certain basic norms of behavior.
Heck, even nihilists see the benefit in not being murdered.
I should think that in a game were everyone wants -- first of all -- to assure his own survival, and then to maximize his prosperity, the strategy of being a mass murderer wouldn't be all that smart. Such a player wouldn't be tolerated for very long. They can have brief streaks of apparent success, but in the long run it looks like a losing hand.
I read an Andrew Sullivan quote this morning and it has bothered me all day. I think it struck a nerve and it is not easy to dismiss. Reading this thread reminded me of it again.
"The Republicans have to be punished for destroying conservatism."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.