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 ...
Where did the golden rule come from?
"Game theory" derives different actions depending upon the initial state of the "players." A morality based on it generates a different "moral action" based on the individuals starting point. The action also depends upon the value given to different outcomes. This means that different individuals have different "moral actions" depending upon what they value.
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.
Consider that someone who values the feeling of power that comes from injuring others can be considered "moral" from a game theory point of view. Of course those who don't like being injured are perfectly justified in taking action to prevent this individual from injuring them. However, from a game theoretic point of view, they cannot claim that the sadist is immoral. Also it is perfectly moral for those who don't want to be injured to push others into harms way if it will keep them from being hurt.
Not my kind of morality.
in the absence of such an imposing entity, one would expect "right" and "wrong" to be determined by several factors, among them: inherited tradition, natural empathy, popular consensus, imposition upon the weak by the strong.
interestingly enough, that seems rather like what most of human history actually records, even within Christendom.
Are you new, then, to the term?
As a unified, politically conservative, activist movement, it came about shortly before the Reagan years and began largely in reaction to RoeVWade.
This thread ought to be in Chat.
You are assuming the Creationists can read and comprehend the obvious signs -- perhaps too great a stretch.
The difference between the secular right and the secular left is that the right has respect for Christians, where the left sees them as a threat.
Sure, I hate cats. (Kidding in case you didn't know)
I do not believe that causing pain just for the sake of causing it to satisfy some base urge is moral. But that's just me.
Is there any specific prohibition of cruelty to animals in the Bible?
I'm not a bible scholar, best to ask those kinds of questions of someone who is.
But very few suggest that the poor are to be given special treatment, or that mistreating inferiors is in any wrong, or that enemies are to be loved.
I noticed you failed to read the part about it being arrived at independently by numerous societies. Any rational person, trying to determine how easiest to get along with those around him, will come up with something similar. It's a bit like the old, "I cut the cake and you choose the piece" rule kids come up with -- God didn't tell them to do it that way, it just seemed the fairest way to divvy up the goodies. It's all in Games Theory, and requires no divine intervention.
And a lot of other people, I'm sure. But what is your authority?
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. [2Th 3:10]
Not really, considering how rule by might has traditionally been the rule of the human race.
No need for a lot of religious mumbo jumbo to explain the obvious
Yet religion has been part of every society, and the societies whose religion includes the rejection of God have been by far the worst.
RadioAstronomer: You are wrong here. Believe me when I say an Atheist can distinguish right from wrong, often much better than many professed Christians I have known.
But, I suggest, you mean a right and wrong derived from Christian ideas of right and wrong.
BINGO! You did not need a deity to tell you that. It is common sense and an ingrained morality we evolved as a societal entity.
I never brought up Cristendom, only the question of who decides what is right and wrong.
From my perspective, in a world without God, there is no right and wrong, only actions and consequences.
Same as for animals. They are incapable of right and wrong. They do what they do, it is morally neutral. They have no souls.
If people have no souls either, they are the same as animals.
Not that I'm an atheist. It's just to say that there can be morality without conventional religious conviction.
On what basis do you claim that enhancing life is right or that diminishing life is wrong?
I suggest this comes from being surrounded by a pervasive Christian society.
For the oldest written record of English Common Law, that would probably be Italian. The Romans made several observations about the nature and functioning of the curious legal system used by the barbarians in the isles before the birth of Christ, as did many other ancient scholars. Compendiums of the case law were not created until much later but were based on ancient precedent, written and unwritten. For the clueless, most of the rest of Europe (and Scotland) uses the historical Christian legal system.
It is kind of obscene that Christians "claim" English Common Law because of its arguable superiority despite unambiguous pagan origins, and conveniently ignore the major legal system of Europe which is essentially Christian in origin.
Oops, my bad.
Well, sure. In fact, I've prepared an alternate table, which clearly shows the (objectively) correct choice if you sum up across the rows:
| Jehovah or Shub-Niggurath? Payoff matrix |
Jehovah exists | Shub-Niggurath exists | Neither exist |
| Worship Jehovah | You win! (+infinity) |
Lose big! For worshipping the wrong god, Shub tortures the souls of you and your entire bloodline for all eternity! (-infinity * number of ancestors and descendants) |
You wasted your time worshipping! (-1) |
| Worship Shub-Niggurath | You lose! (-infinity) |
You win! (+infinity) |
You wasted your time worshipping! (-1) |
| Atheism | You lose! (-infinity) |
Win big! Shub rewards skepticism, for you and your entire bloodline! (+infinity * number of ancestors and descendants) |
Well, at least you didn't waste any time with religion! (+1) |
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.