The website that stated that if you believe in evolution you must therefore believe that whatever you feel like doing is right CAN be called rubbish. - I do not think the poster was calling it rubbish because it was religious, but because it made that preposterous statement. I am sure you are well aware that there are MANY people who believe in both evolution and in god, and saying that one precludes the other is ridiculous.

Kohlberg came to believe that Stage 6 was merely theoretical, but I suspect that he would have agreed that Jesus had at least Stage 5 of moral development. Kohlberg's theory depends on cognitive development and psychological constructs rather than requiring a religious basis.

I believe that religously based moral teachings were a product of cognitively-based moral development. There may or may not be a few moral beliefs that are "universal" in all cultures, but if there, that in no way implies that they are god-given. There are lots of behaviors that are pretty much universal, and which have a selective advantage - such as a mother's feeding her baby when it might drain her resources.

We ARE intelligent animals - there is no "just" about it - there is nothing more exciting or awe-inspiring to me than studying evolutionary biology.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Nellie2:
<strong> The website that stated that if you believe in evolution you must therefore believe that whatever you feel like doing is right CAN be called rubbish. - I do not think the poster was calling it rubbish because it was religious, but because it made that preposterous statement. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But that is not the point. He was using his disagreement with that comment and the religious overtone to call the description of moral relativism "rubbish." That ain't how it works. The religious content was irrelevent to the point at hand and was only asserted as a cheap distraction. The only honest way to discredit a statement is on its own MERITS. And granted, he did go onto to post why he disagreed with that particular definition, which is legitimate.

But just saying that a site is "religious" is not a valid way to discredit its content, anymore than all of your opinions can be dismissed out of hand because of your secular views.

I wasn't proposing the website or it's "religion," it was only used to post a definition of a term. [I have no idea, nor do I even care what else was on the website]

<small>[ February 04, 2005, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</small>

there is nothing more exciting or awe-inspiring to me than studying evolutionary biology.

Nor as religious. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Evolution as procreative tool is as poorly evidenced as ANY theological creation proposal.

It Requires just a smuch 'faith' to fill in the gaps as any creation theory. Witness for example the abject lack of any recorded occurrence of sustained phenotypic mutation actually creating a new, uniquely survivable species,adapted to local environs. Mutation/evolution certainly occurs INTRA species, witness Galapagos, but there is zero evidence to support it as a "net" creation process. Just faith.

In every offered case I have read, the 'missng links' are either absent or have no reason for sustaining the as yet useless mutation.

And I have yet to read ANY treatise that can explain away the almost universal presence of counter-evolutionary moral instincts within Man.

Wow this is good ! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Melody:

Yesterday you said--------------- Stealing has always and always will be immoral.

So the question I have for you is:

Would you consider stealing food to feed your starving baby who will surely die without nourishment?

I know I would!

Regarding absolute morality or the universal code:

All we need is ONE exception to the rule to demolish the theory. In many instances morality is near absolute and the usage of a moral code is quite helpful. But, in the end morality becomes relative as soon as we find exceptions or new situations. And IMHO it does not mean the absence of God.

ML--D, will you please answer a question for me?

Do you feel that the Holocaust was wrong?

D--Yes. My guess is that we probably agree on the large majority of things that we believe to be right and wrong. I would further guess that most “M.R.” philosophers do as well, and therefore would oppose behavior that goes against what they believe to be right. The point that MR (and I am as well) is making is that these are not the kind of statements that can be proven nor disproven--they are ultimately (subjective, or ‘relative’) opinions.

To FH:

D--First, thank you for responding. Although we hold different views on may issues, I do admire the strength of your convictions. I must admit that I think my life would be more peaceful and satisfying if I had your perspective.

FH--dimpsasawa, I want to be sure I understand the position you are arguing, so if you could clarify WHY you chose to "except" God from your statement I would appreciate it. As it stands, you imply that only the existence of God would allow for an "absolute" standard of morality, and I just want to be sure that IS what you are arguing.

D--Yes, that is essentially what I am saying. If God exists And if He is the source of ultimate goodness And He has revealed what is morally right and wrong And we have interpreted these revelations correctly, Then MR has no standing--we have objective proof of what is right and wrong.

FH--Next, what sort of "objective demostration" would you consider to be "proof positive" that murder is morally wrong? I suspect that we are back to discussing WHAT or WHO determines that an action by ANY person is morally good or morally bad. This is back to the "yardstick" issue I talked about earlier. But, for you to ask such a question implies that you DO have some sort of acceptable (or required) objective demostration in mind.

D--I would consider “objective evidence” for any claim or question, not just this one, to be either one of two things:
1) scientific verification
2) a true logical (note: not just a
reasonable argument) proof

FH--dimpsasawa - This attack upon an opinion because it is based upon a faith is unbecoming. You may disagree with the opinion, but to "brand" it as "utter rubbish" indicates a bias against Creationism and for Evolutionism, with the attendant probable corollary that "God doesn't exist."

D--The words were strong; if I offended you I apologize. However, my statement had nothing to do with faith nor what I believe with regard to creation/evolution (and I’d rather not get into that discussion). Rather, the website implied that those who accept evolution have the mindset ‘you can do whatever you want’ because ‘life has no purpose or meaning-nothing matters’. This is a flat-out falsehood. Everything else on the site, which I didn’t read, then becomes highly suspect to me. There are many good and honest religious websites. In my opinion, that is not one of them.

FH--I don't intend to get into a discussion in this thread about the existence of God or the validity of Christianity versus other faiths, but I will say this, because it's germaine to the thread topic; If "God" does not exist, then ALL of the moral teachings connected with ALL religions are false and the mere musings of some human writer. They may, at best, be a "good way" to maintain a semblance of order in a given society, be attractive to some sympathic other humans, but they cannot form an "absolute" set of moral standards that are applicable to all humans, at all times, at all places on the earth. .

D--I agree with you.

FH--If some human WERE to be able to set up a list of moral standards that applied to everyone at all times, by what authority would THAT human have to impose HIS will upon other "free thinking" "I think, therefore I am's" in the world? What would give HIM the "evolved" right to be "better than anyone else" and therefore entitled to say HIS moral standards are the best, no matter what you or anyone else may think or feel?

D--I agree with what you’re implying. Remove God, and there is no reason that I can see that makes any human-made moral code objectively superior to any other, in a *moral* sense.

Many years ago while I was in graduate school, I remember attending a debate between a philosopher who took on an atheist position and a theist opponent. I thought the philosopher did well, until he was asked by his opponent about morality--really the same discussion we are having here. He then said, ‘why certainly an atheist can say that xxx is absolutely morally wrong’. When the debate ended, I personally asked him a follow-up question: don’t just give me a reasonable argument, but *objectively* demonstrate to me that xxx is morally wrong.
I was quite disappointed by his response. He said something like, “well, but that (pointing to the Bible) isn’t an objective source either.“ I did agree with him that, some may not consider the Bible an objective source of information. But what a cop-out way to dodge the question. I still remember that brief conversation clearly.

Not sure if I want to FULLY re-engage on this thread. Seems our time could be better spent helping some BS/WS with their crisis.

Nonetheless,

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by LINY:
<strong>WAT said:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I learned about human interactions about what felt good and what felt bad.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">What is the basis of this, though? Bottom line, if you were told that getting hit "felt good" where would your morals be? In other words, this "can be" a very dangerous statement if you were not "learned" right from wrong, good and bad. But what was the basis of your parents teachings? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I don't ever recall being told or instructed what felt good or bad - but being hit by my brother was processed in my brain as feeling "bad" because it HURT! Pain doesn't feel good! Nobody had to tell me it was bad. Maybe some twisted brains enjoy pain - not mine nor most others'. So, I won't buy into arbitrarily learning that bad is good or good is bad. I believe our reasoning/learning abilities and ability for conscious thinking somehow sorts out what's good/bad - along with our upbringing and exposure to societal norms and laws, etc. I expect the basis of my parents' teachings were not dissimilar from mine, nor yours or anyone else's here. My Dad did do a swell job teaching me to sail, though. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

On the moral relativism question, I've never given this much thought. An interesting philosophical issue - likely hampered by semantics. I can see an argument, for example, that somebody like me who does not acknowledge a God (in the sense most the rest of you probably do) could be branded as a MR for the arguments made above - no point of reference or basis or "baseline" moral starting point exists to gauge or measure against.

OK, let's say I'm a moral relativist > I established my own baseline based on my upbringing, learned experiences, and societal influence (including laws and yes, observation of organized religions or individual codes based upon a diety) - and this baseline gets reinforced over time. Why can't my baseline be just as good as any "authoritarian" established baseline? In many cases - as can be plainly seen by the number of "Christian" WSs we see on this board - mine's a fair sight better, hmmmmm? If a person with a moral code the basis of which is gold plated Christian, Islam, whatever - chooses to be a WS - what good has it done? How many WSs have we had described here who claimed that he/she and their infidelity partner were brought together by God? More than just a few. Where was that "basis" when it was needed? Did it suddenly become variable?

WAT
----------
Always leave room to jibe if a tack fails.

WAT
---------

Always leave room to jibe if a tack fails.

---------

Nice one. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Pep <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="images/icons/cool.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:
<strong> Melody:

Yesterday you said--------------- Stealing has always and always will be immoral.

So the question I have for you is:

Would you consider stealing food to feed your starving baby who will surely die without nourishment?

I know I would!

Regarding absolute morality or the universal code:

All we need is ONE exception to the rule to demolish the theory. In many instances morality is near absolute and the usage of a moral code is quite helpful. But, in the end morality becomes relative as soon as we find exceptions or new situations. And IMHO it does not mean the absence of God. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Stan, but your so-called "exception" does not make the rule. Nor does a good cause make it a bad thing good. Stealing does not become "borrowing" just because it is expedient for you to steal. Your example doesn't make stealing right.

Let's apply your principle to another scenario. Lets say my son will die unless he gets an expensive operation. I don't have the money and the hospital won't operate unless I pay up front. Is it therefore ok for me to rob and kill you for the money for the operation? I am using your principle that my need transcends morals and will justify anything. Am I justified in robbing and killing you in those circumstances?

P.S. and if you didn't believe stealing were wrong, you wouldn't be here making elaborate - and unrealistic - rationalizations. If stealing were RIGHT, all this wouldn't be necessary.

<small>[ February 04, 2005, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by dimpsasawa:
<strong> ML--D, will you please answer a question for me?

Do you feel that the Holocaust was wrong?

D--Yes. My guess is that we probably agree on the large majority of things that we believe to be right and wrong. I would further guess that most “M.R.” philosophers do as well, and therefore would oppose behavior that goes against what they believe to be right. The point that MR (and I am as well) is making is that these are not the kind of statements that can be proven nor disproven--they are ultimately (subjective, or ‘relative’) opinions. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So your opposition to the Holocaust is nothing more than your subjective personal opinion? Your word against Hitler's and neither "opinion" is more legitimate than the other?

Then you must feel that the Allies were unjust in prosecuting the Nazi's because, according to moral relativism, they had no grounds to condemn them because they could not justifiably transcend German secular law. Therefore, the Germans had every right to their own brand of morality that said it is ok to murder Jewish "subhumans."

Nor could you say that the Nazis were wrong unless you know what is absolutely right and you admit that you don't know.

Is this what you are saying?

I guess we owe Hitler a huge apology if the "philosophy" of moral relativists is brought out to its logical conclusion!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">it is still stealing. That doesn't make morality relative. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Melody:

Stealing food to save the baby’s life that cannot be an immoral act. It would only be immoral in the eyes of the shopkeeper (assuming he has no heart) or by a law written by someone who is an absolutist who believes in this so-called universal code.

Letting the baby die when you could have easily go to an open market and pick food from an unguarded stand would be moral in the eyes of most folks in the planet and without a doubt in the eyes of God.

And if this poor parent is taken to court one would hope the judge is not an absolutist.

BTW, this is a common scenario faced by extremely poor people in 3rd world countries.

<small>[ February 04, 2005, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Stan-ley ]</small>

Actually, in the 'stealing food' reference....I'd steal food for my baby if it were starving. I'd kill for my children if that's what needed to be done.....it might not be right or moral, but they're my kids and I'd protect them with my life, and I would steal for them if I had to without blinking an eye.

-Caren

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by ForeverHers:
<strong>WAT, you stated as a basis for your CHOICE, as opposed to my choice on anyone else’s choice; “My moral "code" was learned from my parents and from my life experiences. Right and wrong became abundantly obvious from simple interactions with my baby brother. I have all the authority I need and I choose to obey it. No one says I "must" obey it. Doing so as my own free will, it carries more worth for me than being afraid of NOT obeying it as "ordered" by some "authority." No one makes me do it other than my own conscience. [/b]Pity those[/b] who feel "forced" to obey The Golden Rule - or whatever their code happens to be – under some authority. When he hit me, it hurt. When he lied to my parents about who broke the window (me), I didn't like it. Hence, I learned about human interactions and what felt good and what felt bad. Pretty simple.

I have all the Very sad indeed.”
WAT, there is much contained in this statement you made that bears discussion.

1) By admission, it was YOUR individual moral code (“My moral Code)
2) You learned it from outside of yourself and decide what was important to you
3) You set yourself up as the “Sole Authority” for your life and your choices, and I am certain that you “grant” the same authority to everyone else, they do not have to accept what YOU think is authoritative for your life and choices.
4) Your own conscience (or I assume the attendant corollary of “lack of conscience” in some others) is the “sole authority” in your life and by association, in each individual’s life.
5) You “pity” others who are “dumb enough” to think that anyone outside of themselves has the “right” to state a standard that is universally correct and that all should “obey” that standard for the “good of humanity.”
6) You seem to think that people (and by association with the previous comments you have made I make the assumption that you include Christians in your term “people”) who submit their own “free will” choices to God out of LOVE for God and a desire to please God in response to the great love that He first bestowed upon us, are somehow being forced against their will to submit to God (even though they don’t want to) under threat of punishment (sounds more like Saddam Hussain’s Iraq, as an example). WAT, you negate “free will” choices from those who accept God’s love as a motivation to be “obedient” to the commands of someone who loves us and wants the best for us.
7) You “elevate” FEELINGS as the “guiding light” of determining “right and wrong” and of what our moral behavior is to be, by personal response to our FEELINGS. WAT, isn’t that EXACTLY what has been said time and time again by Wayward Spouses as a justification for infidelity? “If it feels good, do it!” “If it doesn’t feel good, don’t do it!” Let feelings RULE, because feelings NEVER lie to us! Marital Vows? They are “relative” to how I am FEELING, not an absolute covenant that I commit to “until death do us part,” “for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer…”. Forgiveness? What for? “Forgiveness doesn’t FEEL right to me, I have been hurt!!”
8) It is “very sad indeed” to set FEELINGS as the determinant factor in establishing moral standards. To set “personal experience” as the arbiter of how something feels so that we can react as our feelings dictate.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I pretty much agree with this summary with a few tweaks and one wholesale exception.

"3) You set yourself up as the “Sole Authority” for your life and your choices, and I am certain that you “grant” the same authority to everyone else, they do not have to accept what YOU think is authoritative for your life and choices."

Yep. I'll add that I acknowledge the authority and necessity for governmental laws so that society can function and reap common good and defend against common bad. This assumes that the laws have been established by the society so governed and have the consent of the governed and can be changed by the governed as they deem necessary. I will not buy in to your implied argument that everybody else will therefore establish dissimilar morals and standards. Social norms will correct for this. That said, there will always be bad eggs that establish morals not acceptable to society at large. This is where the Golden Rule comes in - it is so intuitive and universal and timeless that it corrects for abnormalities for the most part. Humans could not have evolved from pre-homo sapiens to today's civilization without it.

"5) You “pity” others who are “dumb enough” to think that anyone outside of themselves has the “right” to state a standard that is universally correct and that all should “obey” that standard for the “good of humanity.”"

I didn't say "dumb enough." What I said - in so may words - was that I pity those who feel that they have to obey some higher "authority" in determining right from wrong and that I find more worth and ownership in following what I believe to be right from wrong of my own free will. No one makes me do it. I own it. I am responsible for my standards, actions, and mistakes - no one else. That said, there are times I would like to drive faster than the posted speed limit and it sure is getting old that I have to endure special screening when I get on a plane because my (common) name is on the terrorist list. But I do not feel constrained whatsoever by prohibitions - laws or not - against murder, stealing, infidelity, or hitting my brother back (he's a LOT bigger than me now <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> ).

"6) You seem to think that people (and by association with the previous comments you have made I make the assumption that you include Christians in your term “people”) who submit their own “free will” choices to God out of LOVE for God and a desire to please God in response to the great love that He first bestowed upon us, are somehow being [b] forced against their will to submit to God (even though they don’t want to) under threat of punishment (sounds more like Saddam Hussain’s Iraq, as an example)."[/b]

I cannot say if such people submit of their own free will or not. You originally used the word "forced" in this regard - that was the starting point of my comments regarding pity for such people. And I would agree that Hussein's regieme is an example of people being "forced" to comply with an authority against their will - but this was not so much a moral forcing as much as a totalitarian, economic forcing. The Crusades and the prosecution of Galileo would be better examples of people being forced to comply with some morals or beliefs. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

"7) You “elevate” FEELINGS as the “guiding light” of determining “right and wrong” and of what our moral behavior is to be, by personal response to our FEELINGS. WAT, isn’t that EXACTLY what has been said time and time again by Wayward Spouses as a justification for infidelity? “If it feels good, do it!” “If it doesn’t feel good, don’t do it!” Let feelings RULE, because feelings NEVER lie to us! Marital Vows? They are “relative” to how I am FEELING, not an absolute covenant that I commit to “until death do us part,” “for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer…”. Forgiveness? What for? “Forgiveness doesn’t FEEL right to me, I have been hurt!!”"

"You “elevate” FEELINGS as the “guiding light” of determining “right and wrong”..." isn't exactly what I have said - you're exaggerating this a bit. What I have said is that my standards of right and wrong were in large part determined by my life experiences and learning as I go. When my brother hit me, it "felt" bad. It hurt and I didn't like it. So, yes, my "feelings" guided me, but your statement is an over statement. Nonetheless, the good feeling I get when I donate platelets once a month to some faceless cancer patient DOES make me feel very good. I'm helping somebody. This is right and good.

Again, these "feelings" are bracketed by societal norms and if I get one wrong, it'll be revealed in time and I can adjust my code. My code doesn't change on a whim or on a rationalization.

Glad you brought up the "feel good" infidel point. How many "Christian" WSs do we see on this forum, hmmmmm? Where was their "moral standard by authority" when they needed it? And how come a heathen like me can honor my wedding vows? Because honoring my promise was the right thing to do, by my standard of right and wrong. My WS suddenly became Catholic because OM was. What part of "Thou shalt not...." were they excused from? By what authority? It gets pretty messy, this "moral standard" tar baby, doesn't it?

"8) It is “very sad indeed” to set FEELINGS as the determinant factor in establishing moral standards. To set “personal experience” as the arbiter of how something feels so that we can react as our feelings dictate."

I don't agree with you here. As stated above, your use of "feelings" isn't exactly how I stated my standards. But nonetheless, my standard of right and wrong, the Golden Rule - the basis for me of which is my upbringing and learned life experiences along with societal norms and laws - is working for me much better than many who claim to be led by a higher moral authority.

WAT

<small>[ February 04, 2005, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: worthatry ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">it is still stealing. That doesn't make morality relative. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Melody:

Stealing food to save the baby’s life that cannot be an immoral act. It would only be immoral in the eyes of the shopkeeper (assuming he has no heart) or by a law written by someone who is an absolutist who believes in this so-called universal code.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Stanley, it is immoral whether or not the thief believes it. Stealing is still stealing regardless of the cause. The definition of stealing does not change to accommodate your need [or whim]. It is still stealing. And like I said earlier, if stealing were right, you wouldn't be here trying to justify it.

You did not answer my question above so I will post it again:

Ok, Stan, let's apply your principle to another scenario. Lets say my son will die unless he gets an expensive operation. I don't have the money and the hospital won't operate unless I pay up front. Is it therefore ok for me to rob and kill you for the money for the operation? I am using your principle that my need transcends morals and will justify evil.

Does my need therefore mean that I am not a murderer and a thief?

<small>[ February 04, 2005, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</small>

Is it therefore ok for me to rob and kill you for the money for the operation?

melody:

You are making my point.

To kill the shopkeeper and to steal his money to pay for medical treatment for the baby is not the same as stealing one banana out of 500 in display in his food stand.

The situations are completely different therefore one must take that into account before deciding whether the act is immoral or not. To simply state this is always immoral regardless of the circumstances is not the way to go IMHO. In the end DP makes a lot of sense. These things are always subjective and or relative to many other factors.

I would say most people would think that killing the shopkeeper to steal his money is immoral even if the intention was to save the life of the baby. However, stealing one banana to save the baby’s life is a completely different situation.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:
[QB] Is it therefore ok for me to rob and kill you for the money for the operation?

melody:

You are making my point.

To kill the shopkeeper and to steal his money to pay for medical treatment for the baby is not the same as stealing one banana out of 500 in display in his food stand.

The situations are completely different therefore one must take that into account before deciding whether the act is immoral or not. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">By what standard is one wrong and the other right? I simply used your principle - need transcends morals - and applied it to another situation. Are you now denying that standard?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I would say most people would think that killing the shopkeeper to steal his money is immoral even if the intention was to save the life of the baby. However, stealing one banana to save the baby’s life is a completely different situation.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But that is just your opinion. You have already said that standards are relative so you can't say that murder is wrong and stealing is right. It is just your opinion against mine since you have no absolute standards.

If standards are relative, as you claim, then I say that murder is justified. And who are you to disagree with me since there are no absolute standards?

Well after reading this entire thread, and taking a couple of aspirins <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> , this is what I conclude about my beliefs.

I can not deal in moral/immoral terminolgy.

Lets not forget about the "immorality" of the hospital refusing to save a babies life because of money in the first place, and

I operate on an internal code of ethics derived from a few universal truths which were implanted on my soul and reinforced through experience.

Where the soul implanting came from, for me would be God because I know nothing else which makes sense to me.

What those universal truths are, well one would be "we reap what we sow" another would be "for every action there is a reaction", because we are all universally connected.

weaver

Hi weave - and I bet you also conclude that folks like me can do a pretty good job of knowing right from wrong despite having different "pedigrees" than you or others.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="images/icons/cool.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="images/icons/cool.gif" />
WAT
------------
Flake your sails head to foot.

Roger that WAT!!!

edited for improper comma use <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

<small>[ February 04, 2005, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: weaver ]</small>