Quote:

What you are doing is more like a reflex movement.


Quoted Pappenheimer.
Looks more like a dangerous, self-destructive impulse or compulsion to me, but what do I know?

Although I wouldn't have used the term "love", I like MathewAllen's post and I believe there is some truth to it. (It contains a principle or two in common with what I had written earlier but didn't post.)

Quote:

I think Matthew Allen is wrong here, morals are not a byproduct of love. Moral codes likely developed as a needed set of rules of behavior in small tribal groups.


Quoted Matt_Aufderheide.

From my idiot's perspective:
I don't really see a true conflict with some principles that were hinted at in MathewAllen's post and what was stated in Matt_Aufderheide's post.

I for one, do not want myself, nor my mate(s), nor my offspring to be raped and/or killed (not in preferred order) by other members of my species (edit: not by whales either).
I would rather not be a member of a society which allows such acts.

I think that societies may have "evolved" over time to support somewhat "absolute" rules which are beneficial to the survival of the members of those societies or groups (specific members of the species) and those which are also beneficial to the survival of the species as a whole. I think that a society that does not support rules which are productive or beneficial for the species, may be consumed by a society with better, more productive rules. (Please cite examples where creatures which are a members of a herd, kill other members of their herd periodically or often. Now please debate whether or not these "herd creatures", which may or may not have forms of consciousness, debate "absolute" or "relative" morals. Deduct 5000pts if anyone mentions ants for some reason. Deduct another 2500pts if someone states that "herd creatures" rape each other often, and that, for human beings, rape is a good means by which to reproduce.)

Without some form of natural empathy or sympathy, an individual may not protect its mate(s) and offspring and may not supply its mate(s) and offspring with needed resources, food, shelter, etc. If there is, indeed, some form of natural or innate form of empathy or sympathy, it is maybe not so difficult to conceive of instances where empathy and sympathy are extended to other somewhat unrelated members of the species. To some degree, if unrelated members sacrifice excess time and resources, those resources which can be spared without serious detrimental effects to related members, to aid other unrelated members in need of such resources, then such behavior (when replicated) might be beneficial to the survival of the species as a whole.

I'm a fool, but I still think that its absurd, a waste of time, utterly ridiculous, a true mark of insanity, to try to get anyone to claim that, Hitler and slavery are only wrong based on context, if the current applicable contexts (personal + group) force such to be absolutely wrong for the groups individuals belong to and themselves. I can not pretend that my context has no meaning, nor can I completely, immediately, separate myself from my context...not even to make absolute statements such as "slavery is only wrong based on context" or "Hitler is only wrong within context." (edit:This may be a general limitation of being a simpleton which might be overcome in another paragraph.) Sorry, but both slavery and Hitler may still be absolutely wrong from my context. Morals and beliefs may be generally relative, but relative to me, my morals and beliefs may be absolutes.

@Irish_Farmer
Really, from the dummy's perspective, what you seem to be trying to do, looks more like a setup for some form of "catch the stupid" trap. I'm probably just dumb enough to try to spring it..."Ok, I'm a super, mega, ultra, platinum, gold, die-hard, true-blood, professional version bad kitty...I mean relativist (whatever that might be...strange...some dictionaries don't have an entry for it). There is no right or wrong. If Hitler had won, and at the time he just so happened to be a Confederate general, killing "subhumans" that don't make good slaves, might now be the "right" thing to do. If I take everything out of context, including myself, Hitler and slavery are at the very top of the "right tree", and when mixed together, are like peanut butter and chocolate...two great tastes that taste great together. Again, Hitler is only wrong because he lost the war blah blah blah. I reckon, raping your jewish slaves (a good way to reproduce (edit: more slaves?)) is only "wrong" because raping slaves is illegal in these here parts (and specifically over yonder at 2:42 p.m. on Tuesdays)."

Idiots like myself, can only wonder if something else happens now.

Last edited by testDummy; 06/25/06 10:47.