If there is no moral absolutes, then there is no such thing as morals. What the moral absolutes are is open to discussion and how those absolutes apply to particular situations may vary. What it means to say that there is a moral absolute is to say that in a given situation, the same moral answer applies, no matter who finds themselves in that situation. The answer doesn't change whether I am in that situation, or you are.
If morals are not absolute, what relevance do your morals have to me? If my morals conflict with yours, we can both be equally moral. That means that saying that someone is moral, means nothing.
When you use the word morals, you are using a different word than when I use the word morals. They have the same pronunciation. They have the same spelling, but we are saying different things.
By your definition the Nazi's were moral. In my opinion there are several flaws with your "morality". The primary one being that "moral" is whatever the general consensus of society says it is. So when abolitionists first worked to free slaves on the Underground Railroad were immoral, because the consensus of society at that time was that slaves were property.
"Another simple example of a morality without a religion: "right" is whatever is legal. This morality's authority is the law."
By this definition, the Holocaust was morally good, because it was the law of Germany at the time. So Germans who assisted in the mass murder of Jews and others were behaving in a moral manner if they accepted
Ultimately, when you say something is "moral", you are saying something completely different than I am. When I am saying that something is morally right, I am appealing to a standard that I believe applies to all people at all times. I may be wrong about what that standard is, but I believe that it exists, independent of whether I believe in it or not. When you say that something is morally right, you are saying that you prefer to live in a world where people behave that way.
That's fine, as long as you don't expect me to live by it. The reason that 19th century Christian missionaries assumed it was ok, was because their moral system told them it was not only ok, but imperative that they do so. Your moral system seems to say that people shouldn't judge other people's moral systems. If that is the case, why are you judging the moral system of 19th century Christian missionaries? BTW, the morals of 19th century Christian missionaries is why we don't have slavery anymore. The abolitionist movement grew out of the same moral imperative that led those Christian missionaries to Africa and Asia.
Peter Singer is a man who believes that infanticide is ethical under the correct circumstances. In my opinion, Peter Singer is a demonstration of what happens when you try and build a moral system without a religious basis, the moral system supports doing whatever it is you want to be able to do. When I look at the developments of Peter Singer's "ethics" over time, I see a man who started with "Since abortion is morally right...". In my opinion, using Peter Singer's logic. anything can be justified as morally right.
In your moral system you have defined how to judge if something is "right", but you have not defined what "right" means. You have substituted one undefined word, "moral" , for another, "right".
I was replying to a poster who said that morality does not require religion. If morality is not based on religion, where does its authority come from? What makes said morality normative? I have yet to see an answer to those questions. Different religions rest the authority of their moral code on aspects of the religion (usually God, but I am not sure about Buddhism it has been to long since I examined Buddhism's belief structure). If you have a religion free morality, what gives it authority to change people's behavior? Or are you one of those people that says "We shouldn't impose our beliefs on others"?
So if someone's arbitrary goal was maximizing human misery, then actions that furthered that goal would good for them?
By your definition, the perpetrators of the Holocaust were acting morally, since one of their ultimate goals was the extermination of the Jews.
So muslim terrorists whose ultimate goal is that everyone alive believe as they do are behaving morally by killing anyone who does not believe as they do?
"The arbitrary goal, in this case is one of a few (different people have different such goals):
* Maximizing personal happiness
* Maximizing humans' happiness
* Maximizing all living creatures happiness, with more emphasis on animals closer to humans (Vegeterians hold these morals)."
What makes these goals better than others?
Define right and wrong. What makes an action right? What makes an action wrong? Who are you to say so? What source do you go to to determine the answers? Your definition of morality is circular logic. "This is the moral thing to do because it is the right thing to do." "This is the right thing to do because it is the moral thing to do." These sentences are the same, and neither one says anything.
My only problem with class action lawsuits are the ones where some lawyer finds a "problem" and then goes looking for someone as the base for setting up a class action lawsuit. (I may have the wording wrong, but I remember reading about a law firm that that was basically all they did). I'm not sure how you fix that without taking away the ability of individuals to group together to make the case big enough to be worth the money to litigate for what is sometimes a serious issue.
If Scooter Libby "outed a CIA field agent" why wasn't he, or anyone else, charged for it? Valerie Plame was not a covert agent. Just because people say something over and over again, that doesn't make it true.
Can't we wait until this is reported in a reliable news source to get worked up about it? I mean the National Enquirer does more fact checking than the New York Times.
I am sorry I over simplified in making my point. The fact remains that antibiotic resistant bacteria, in general (there may be a few exceptions, but I am unaware of any), have a more difficult time overcoming the body's immune system than non antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Most (if not all) antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria accomplish this resistance by disabling the protein which the antibiotic attacks. The reason they had said protein in the first place was because it offered a significant competitive advantage. To be precise, the protein in question in most cases has to do with carrying chemicals across the cell membrane. The bacteria are significantly less efficient at transferring chemicals across the cell membrane without the protein that they have deactivated to be resistant to antibiotics. It is sort of like if you avoid being exposed to poison by not opening your mouth, the poison wouldn't get in, but it would be harder to eat.
I hate to have to tell you this, but fewer people get sick and die from the "superbugs" than died from their predecessors. Despite what you were taught or at least led to believe, as a general rule, antibiotic resistant bacteria are not "stronger" than the non-antibiotic resistant versions. That is why you very rarely hear of someone getting infected with antibiotic resistant bacteria outside of a hospital. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are at a significant competitive disadvantage when no antibiotics are present. Many people are not aware disease causing bacteria spend most of their existence not causing illness (for various reasons), in these settings the non antibiotic resistant bacteria generally completely overrun the antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Telecommunications exists as a semi-monopoly because of government regulation. Most of the barriers to entry are government regulations in one form or another.
I tend to support limiting government regulation. This is an issue that I find myself very conflicted on. I have seen studies that make a good case that insisting on net neutrality is the scenario that favors expanding bandwidth to the highest degree. The problem is that ISP's are generally government created semi-monopolies, so unless we force the government to change the rules eliminating this monopoly status, government regulation is necessary to maintain the public interest. On the other hand, I don't trust politicians to pass a "net neutrality" law that doesn't contain some additional onerous clauses.
To sum up, I think net neutrality is in the best interest of everyone (even the ISP's in the long run), but I am afraid to support "net neutrality" laws because I suspect they will be something other than advertised.
If Microsoft vanished tomorrow do you have any idea how big a hit that much money disappearing from the economy would have. I am not just talking about Microsoft's sales and assets. This would also include all the people who are invested in MS. I am not sure what MS market capitalization is, but I know it is big enough that the amount of money that would be dropped out of the economy by it disappearing would cause a recession.
"Where do the deadliest viruses appear? Hospitals. Why? Because hospitals keep killing them and they mutate to survive (rather, weirder mutations manage to survive, and deadlier)."
You are confusing viruses with bacteria. Viruses are not effected by antibiotics (like penicillin). Many bacteria mutate in response to being exposed to antibiotics. However, even in the case of these mutated bacteria, part of the reason that they appear in hospitals is because the antibiotics eliminate the other bacteria, which limit the growth of antibiotic resistant bacteria in the wild.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the "moral" rules he suggested was that the law said was what was moral. The law of Nazi Germany called for the elimination of the Jews.
If there is no moral absolutes, then there is no such thing as morals. What the moral absolutes are is open to discussion and how those absolutes apply to particular situations may vary. What it means to say that there is a moral absolute is to say that in a given situation, the same moral answer applies, no matter who finds themselves in that situation. The answer doesn't change whether I am in that situation, or you are.
Morality is absolute. Some people don't like that because it means that they can't do whatever they like and think of themselves as a good person.
"I don't see what the problem is, or why people think that morals have anything "absolute" about them." I'm sorry.
If morals are not absolute, what relevance do your morals have to me? If my morals conflict with yours, we can both be equally moral. That means that saying that someone is moral, means nothing. When you use the word morals, you are using a different word than when I use the word morals. They have the same pronunciation. They have the same spelling, but we are saying different things.
So, what you are saying is that might makes right.
By your definition the Nazi's were moral. In my opinion there are several flaws with your "morality". The primary one being that "moral" is whatever the general consensus of society says it is. So when abolitionists first worked to free slaves on the Underground Railroad were immoral, because the consensus of society at that time was that slaves were property. "Another simple example of a morality without a religion: "right" is whatever is legal. This morality's authority is the law." By this definition, the Holocaust was morally good, because it was the law of Germany at the time. So Germans who assisted in the mass murder of Jews and others were behaving in a moral manner if they accepted Ultimately, when you say something is "moral", you are saying something completely different than I am. When I am saying that something is morally right, I am appealing to a standard that I believe applies to all people at all times. I may be wrong about what that standard is, but I believe that it exists, independent of whether I believe in it or not. When you say that something is morally right, you are saying that you prefer to live in a world where people behave that way.
That's fine, as long as you don't expect me to live by it. The reason that 19th century Christian missionaries assumed it was ok, was because their moral system told them it was not only ok, but imperative that they do so. Your moral system seems to say that people shouldn't judge other people's moral systems. If that is the case, why are you judging the moral system of 19th century Christian missionaries? BTW, the morals of 19th century Christian missionaries is why we don't have slavery anymore. The abolitionist movement grew out of the same moral imperative that led those Christian missionaries to Africa and Asia.
Peter Singer is a man who believes that infanticide is ethical under the correct circumstances. In my opinion, Peter Singer is a demonstration of what happens when you try and build a moral system without a religious basis, the moral system supports doing whatever it is you want to be able to do. When I look at the developments of Peter Singer's "ethics" over time, I see a man who started with "Since abortion is morally right...". In my opinion, using Peter Singer's logic. anything can be justified as morally right. In your moral system you have defined how to judge if something is "right", but you have not defined what "right" means. You have substituted one undefined word, "moral" , for another, "right".
I was replying to a poster who said that morality does not require religion. If morality is not based on religion, where does its authority come from? What makes said morality normative? I have yet to see an answer to those questions. Different religions rest the authority of their moral code on aspects of the religion (usually God, but I am not sure about Buddhism it has been to long since I examined Buddhism's belief structure). If you have a religion free morality, what gives it authority to change people's behavior? Or are you one of those people that says "We shouldn't impose our beliefs on others"?
So if someone's arbitrary goal was maximizing human misery, then actions that furthered that goal would good for them? By your definition, the perpetrators of the Holocaust were acting morally, since one of their ultimate goals was the extermination of the Jews. So muslim terrorists whose ultimate goal is that everyone alive believe as they do are behaving morally by killing anyone who does not believe as they do? "The arbitrary goal, in this case is one of a few (different people have different such goals): * Maximizing personal happiness * Maximizing humans' happiness * Maximizing all living creatures happiness, with more emphasis on animals closer to humans (Vegeterians hold these morals)." What makes these goals better than others?
Define right and wrong. What makes an action right? What makes an action wrong? Who are you to say so? What source do you go to to determine the answers? Your definition of morality is circular logic. "This is the moral thing to do because it is the right thing to do." "This is the right thing to do because it is the moral thing to do." These sentences are the same, and neither one says anything.
My only problem with class action lawsuits are the ones where some lawyer finds a "problem" and then goes looking for someone as the base for setting up a class action lawsuit. (I may have the wording wrong, but I remember reading about a law firm that that was basically all they did). I'm not sure how you fix that without taking away the ability of individuals to group together to make the case big enough to be worth the money to litigate for what is sometimes a serious issue.
It comes down to this, most of the stories turn out to be like Dan Rather's Texas Air National Guard story, "false, but accurate".
If Scooter Libby "outed a CIA field agent" why wasn't he, or anyone else, charged for it? Valerie Plame was not a covert agent. Just because people say something over and over again, that doesn't make it true.
But, but...I thought the Iraq war was unjustified because Iraq didn't have any nuclear facilities.
They tried that in Florida in 2000, the Democrats found it too confusing.
Can't we wait until this is reported in a reliable news source to get worked up about it? I mean the National Enquirer does more fact checking than the New York Times.
I am sorry I over simplified in making my point. The fact remains that antibiotic resistant bacteria, in general (there may be a few exceptions, but I am unaware of any), have a more difficult time overcoming the body's immune system than non antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Most (if not all) antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria accomplish this resistance by disabling the protein which the antibiotic attacks. The reason they had said protein in the first place was because it offered a significant competitive advantage. To be precise, the protein in question in most cases has to do with carrying chemicals across the cell membrane. The bacteria are significantly less efficient at transferring chemicals across the cell membrane without the protein that they have deactivated to be resistant to antibiotics. It is sort of like if you avoid being exposed to poison by not opening your mouth, the poison wouldn't get in, but it would be harder to eat.
I hate to have to tell you this, but fewer people get sick and die from the "superbugs" than died from their predecessors. Despite what you were taught or at least led to believe, as a general rule, antibiotic resistant bacteria are not "stronger" than the non-antibiotic resistant versions. That is why you very rarely hear of someone getting infected with antibiotic resistant bacteria outside of a hospital. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are at a significant competitive disadvantage when no antibiotics are present. Many people are not aware disease causing bacteria spend most of their existence not causing illness (for various reasons), in these settings the non antibiotic resistant bacteria generally completely overrun the antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Telecommunications exists as a semi-monopoly because of government regulation. Most of the barriers to entry are government regulations in one form or another.
I tend to support limiting government regulation. This is an issue that I find myself very conflicted on. I have seen studies that make a good case that insisting on net neutrality is the scenario that favors expanding bandwidth to the highest degree. The problem is that ISP's are generally government created semi-monopolies, so unless we force the government to change the rules eliminating this monopoly status, government regulation is necessary to maintain the public interest. On the other hand, I don't trust politicians to pass a "net neutrality" law that doesn't contain some additional onerous clauses. To sum up, I think net neutrality is in the best interest of everyone (even the ISP's in the long run), but I am afraid to support "net neutrality" laws because I suspect they will be something other than advertised.
If Microsoft vanished tomorrow do you have any idea how big a hit that much money disappearing from the economy would have. I am not just talking about Microsoft's sales and assets. This would also include all the people who are invested in MS. I am not sure what MS market capitalization is, but I know it is big enough that the amount of money that would be dropped out of the economy by it disappearing would cause a recession.
"Where do the deadliest viruses appear? Hospitals. Why? Because hospitals keep killing them and they mutate to survive (rather, weirder mutations manage to survive, and deadlier)." You are confusing viruses with bacteria. Viruses are not effected by antibiotics (like penicillin). Many bacteria mutate in response to being exposed to antibiotics. However, even in the case of these mutated bacteria, part of the reason that they appear in hospitals is because the antibiotics eliminate the other bacteria, which limit the growth of antibiotic resistant bacteria in the wild.