RE: BIG BROTHER #4
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
Scott, if the ethics of a given society were derived purely from a necessary and functional standpoint, that is, what are the bare minimum (relative) truths/laws needed for the society to function, it would be to much greater effect than having them inherited/derived from the morals of the current majority. To make it a bit more explicit:A society that does not place a certain amount of importance on individual human life will not sustain itself. Due to the possible wanton, internal killing; the society could theorectically kill itself off. Therefore, it is necessary for a society to place some sort of quantitfiable predicate on murder (if it wants longevity). Also, a society with an individually based, capitalisitic economy cannot allow for stealing. Therefore, for the economy to sustain itself, it is necessary to place some sort of quantitfiable predicate on stealing/theft. When created from this paradigm, the ethics have a greater longevity.Conversly, if a society does inherit its ethics from the popular morals of whatever religion is en vogue at a given epoch, it will confuse, schism, and other wise ____ up future generations. Look at the gay marriage issue. Or the general abhorrence of war.The ethics of America are based on religious morals that are not shared by everyone. Religious "truths" are only true to those who blindly follow that religion. This is why there are so many seemingly different opinions. If we cut back the ethics to only those that are necessary for the survival of our country, there would be much less opposition to them. Regarding the opposition, there would be no issue with enforcing these ethics, since they are axiomatically necessary.
[/div]
JD, that has to be the longest, most elegant post i've seen out of you. You make a good point, too. I never really thought of it that way, but that's a good theory. All i know is religious people piss me off. There has to be a more logical approach to legislation.
