New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
Good and Evil for Icenine... To poke and prod at IceNine's intellect, I've selected the objective nature of Good and Evil as a topic. Before I state my full position, I want to "test the waters" with a thought experiement:
Ice, say AzureStar was killed by the sniper. Of course you'll likely consider him Evil, if I understand your position on this, but at the same time, you'll maintain that "evil" isn't an objective concept, that you only think he's evil because you were taught as much? Elaborate/clarify? (sorry Azure, I would never wish such a thing on you!) Fear is the mind-killer. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
I don't consider anyone or anything evil... I don't even use that word to describe people, things, actions, etc.
I believe that actions such as murder are wrong and I would think that he acted in a manner that was not consistent with my conception of right and wrong. I would be extremely angry and I would want him to be punished in the most severe possible way. You are right, evil is not objective. In order to be objective about the concept of evil and good, you would need to be beyond good and evil. As long as you are intertwined in the workings of the world and are a part of the system, it is impossible to be totally objective. You will see what you have been taught to see and think along the lines of your experience. It is a difficult question that you have posed, but I do not believe that we can be completely objective on subjects such as these, due to our being inescapably tied to the system. SUPERJOINT RITUAL - http://www.superjointritual.com
A Lethal Dose of American Hatred | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Being inside the system doesn't necessarily force one's perceptions to be distorted...if you define your terms carefully you can make them stick. I maintain that just because a concept is rooted in human nature does not mean it is non-objective. You simply have to factor in the facts of human nature.
Indeed...Evil (or Good) do not exist outside of mankind. Rocks, plants, and animals are neither good nor evil; they just are. But people...people have a unique grasp of reality, and the unique ability to willfully learn, or to willfully "avoid knowing" things. This is clearly a hand-waving explanation at this point, but I'll go ahead put my definition of evil down now: Evil, at root, is the act of willfully evading reality. In practice, this leads to bloodshed and the more practical examples of evil that most people are familiar with. Fear is the mind-killer. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Keep going guys... this is going to be interesting!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
come on guys..dont stop now...this is how i love my icenine...
keep it up!!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The problem that I have with "good" and "evil" is that the terms are not moralistally neutral. Since I do not believe in a universal morality, I believe that terms such as "good" and "evil" are subjective and judgments of "good" and "evil" are made according to the moral views of the person who is doing the judging.
Most people do not think that killing animals is evil, while many animal rights activists consider killing animals to be evil. Who is right and who is wrong? Killing is a part of nature and it is only "evil" when it affects someone in such a way as to prompt them to moral indignation. We don't see it as evil when a coyote eats a rabbit in the wild but we see it as evil when a human is killed. This is because the human condition is our condition and we are a part of the equation, thus our perception of events is colored. We feel distinct and separate from wild animals, so we are not bothered by predation in the animal world but we are bothered by murder in the human world because we are a part of human society and feel threatened by actions that might bring us harm. In this way, our perceptions are formed out of our membership in the human community. When viewed from outside, our troubles, murders, triumphs and tragedies are nothing more than natural events. SUPERJOINT RITUAL - http://www.superjointritual.com
A Lethal Dose of American Hatred | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IceNine said: When viewed from outside, our troubles, murders, triumphs and tragedies are nothing more than natural events.
I agree... well, I agree with your entire post, but especially that part there. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IceNine said: When viewed from outside, our troubles, murders, triumphs and tragedies are nothing more than natural events. There is no outside from which to view things. If you mean aliens that regard us as mere ameobae might not take offense at 9/11, you are probably correct. But this is all beside the point, because man needs a coherent moral code in order to survive and thrive beyond the level of the animals.
A moral code is a set of principles that guide man's actions so as to furthers his survival qua man. As such it doesn't have to be subjective...here's an example of a moral principle at work: Using your consciousness to focus and comprehend reality yields greater survival, whereas the ostrich philosophy of sticking your head in the sand does not improve your condition. There isn't anything subjective about this particular example moral element, is there? One method works, the other does not. Even when "viewed from the outside." It only gets cloudy when people bring arbitrary things into morality, like not being allowed to eat meat on Friday or whatever the religious traditions frequently offer along such lines. These "ethics" are a distraction from the fundamental question, and feed the subjective quality of morality that we experience in our society. But at the bottom of it all, we need certain principles in order to thrive. And so I maintain that sticking your head in the sand is an "evil" act. More complex issues like killing animals are difficult and debatable because they call into question people's beliefs about the spiritual status of animals and whatnot. You might say some ethics are subjective. But some are not. Fear is the mind-killer. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Since I am extraordinarily busy at work right now, I will let Nietzsche respond for me. The following is from "Twilight of the Idols" and states my case:
"Judgments, judgments of value, concerning life, for it or against it, can, in the end, never be true: they have value only as symptoms, they are worthy of consideration only as symptoms; in themselves such judgments are stupidities. One must by all means stretch out one's fingers and make the attempt to grasp this amazing finesse, that the value of life cannot be estimated. Not by the living, for they arc an interested party, even a bone of contention, and not judges; not by the dead, for a different reason." EDIT: I apologize for having to quote Nietzsche, but I really am swamped at work currently...  He does state my case though
.. [This message was edited Wed Oct 30 11:10:39 PST 2002 by IceNine] SUPERJOINT RITUAL - http://www.superjointritual.com
A Lethal Dose of American Hatred | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IceNine said: Since I am extraordinarily busy at work right now, I will let Nietzsche respond for me. The following is from "Twilight of the Idols" and states my case:
K I'll bug you later...but do answer my ostrich example directly at some point if you would please. I think it holds true outside of man's "interested" perspective."Judgments, judgments of value, concerning life, for it or against it, can, in the end, never be true: they have value only as symptoms, they are worthy of consideration only as symptoms; in themselves such judgments are stupidities. One must by all means stretch out one's fingers and make the attempt to grasp this amazing finesse, that the value of life cannot be estimated. Not by the living, for they arc an interested party, even a bone of contention, and not judges; not by the dead, for a different reason." Fear is the mind-killer. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Interesting thread... keep it going guys! "Peace and Benz -- The future, made in Germany"  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The Evil cannot remain without a hook to hang on.
Positivity and happiness can exist without any reason. The mind goes on trying to find a hook for its negativity - if not this person, then the thing or that person. This perpetuates the creeping vine of negativity needs support in order to grow. But the evil or aversion for even one person can guarantee a one-way ticket to hell... you need nothing else. The Evil is an indicator for you to move to your center and to broaden your vision to cosmic intelligence. Instead of focusing your attention on a hook for your negativity, look at the seed of the negativity. "Peace and Benz -- The future, made in Germany" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
teller said: A moral code is a set of principles that guide man's actions so as to furthers his survival qua man. As such it doesn't have to be subjective...here's an example of a moral principle at work: Using your consciousness to focus and comprehend reality yields greater survival, whereas the ostrich philosophy of sticking your head in the sand does not improve your condition. There isn't anything subjective about this particular example moral element, is there? One method works, the other does not. Even when "viewed from the outside."
[/i] This falls under the heading of pragmatism. The value of our judgment lies in the observable consequences of our actions, therefore forming a worldview that supports the survival of the species is pragmatically sound, but it is still not objective, as the object of the action is to promote the survivability of the species. "Good" and "evil" in relation to pragmatism... "Good" is anything that helps the species survive and proliferate. "Evil" is that which hinders the goals of society or the proliferation of the species. Let's say that there were two species of intelligent animals that were equally dominant in an environment and that each of these species wanted to become the sole dominant species on their planet. The actions internal to each species would follow a set of rules that would allow them to flourish and would help them to multiply and increase in number. From the viewpoint of one of the species that wanted to dominate the planet, any act that caused the demise of significant numbers of the opposing species would be a "good" act whereas it would be an "evil" act to the opposing species. Viewed objectively from beyond both species, the actions of each are just actions and have no "good" or "evil" attached to them, as their goals are the same. The observer must be truly neutral in order to judge the actions of the species objectively. In the human world, this is something that is impossible to do, as humans are a part of the system being evaluated and the actions in this system are directly effected by the outcome of actions. I'm sorry if this is a bit simplistic, but I am trying to get this in while being too busy for words at work.
EDIT: and why did someone vote zero stars for this thread? It should be pretty interesting for anyone who is even remotely interested in philosophy. ... [This message was edited Wed Oct 30 11:51:53 PST 2002 by IceNine] SUPERJOINT RITUAL - http://www.superjointritual.com
A Lethal Dose of American Hatred | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IceNine said: I'm sorry if this is a bit simplistic, but I am trying to get this in while being too busy for words at work. Me too! Shows where our priorities lie, doesn't it? LOL...I'll be back with a reply...Fear is the mind-killer. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Good and evil both exist as far as humans are concerned,what makes one perform these acts are more the question. because in reality society has set standards of what is considered wrong and right., good or evil. usually something good is helpful, feels good, and is morally right. evil is usually something harmful affecting one in a negative way. why the two exist, well ice this is where u chew me out of course. because eve bit the apple from the tree of knowledge..im a true follower of god so i honestly think and have faith in this being true. i know the flames are comming 2 get me now.i've opened up a can. stickman | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
joelmarable said: usually something good is helpful, feels good, and is morally right That's circular, using morality in the definition of good.Fear is the mind-killer. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I AM BAD!!!
do you concider me to be EVIL??? nothing i do is EVIL. but would that not be the purest form of EVIL. everything i do is BAD... am i not EVIL??? but then... I AM King BAD a.k.a. BAD,
YOU EITHER WANNA BE ME, OR BE JUST LIKE ME  ™ | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
teller good means--of moral excellence.look in websters new world portable.besides thats exactly what i mean society has based anything good on it being morally right,worth or virtue.benefit.having proper qualities beneficial.etc evil-morally bad harmful wicked.and i still think we suffer the ladder because of eve. with faith happiness still can be captured but this world will not and cannot be without evil.because of eve. stickman | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
joelmarable said: teller good means--of moral excellence.look in websters new world portable.besides thats exactly what i mean society has based anything good on it being morally right,worth or virtue.benefit.having proper qualities beneficial.etc evil-morally BAD harmful wicked.and i still think we suffer the ladder because of eve. with faith happiness still can be captured but this world will not and cannot be without evil.because of eve.
NUFF SAID!!! I AM King BAD a.k.a. BAD,
YOU EITHER WANNA BE ME, OR BE JUST LIKE ME ™ | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
joelmarable said: teller good means--of moral excellence.look in websters new world portable.besides thats exactly what i mean society has based anything good on it being morally right,worth or virtue.benefit.having proper qualities beneficial.etc evil-morally bad harmful wicked.and i still think we suffer the ladder because of eve. with faith happiness still can be captured but this world will not and cannot be without evil.because of eve. It's still a circular definition, websters or not.Fear is the mind-killer. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IceNine said: teller said: A moral code is a set of principles that guide man's actions so as to furthers his survival qua man. As such it doesn't have to be subjective...here's an example of a moral principle at work: Using your consciousness to focus and comprehend reality yields greater survival, whereas the ostrich philosophy of sticking your head in the sand does not improve your condition. There isn't anything subjective about this particular example moral element, is there? One method works, the other does not. Even when "viewed from the outside."
[/i] This falls under the heading of pragmatism. The value of our judgment lies in the observable consequences of our actions, therefore forming a worldview that supports the survival of the species is pragmatically sound, but it is still not objective, as the object of the action is to promote the survivability of the species. "Good" and "evil" in relation to pragmatism... "Good" is anything that helps the species survive and proliferate. "Evil" is that which hinders the goals of society or the proliferation of the species. Let's say that there were two species of intelligent animals that were equally dominant in an environment and that each of these species wanted to become the sole dominant species on their planet. The actions internal to each species would follow a set of rules that would allow them to flourish and would help them to multiply and increase in number. From the viewpoint of one of the species that wanted to dominate the planet, any act that caused the demise of significant numbers of the opposing species would be a "good" act whereas it would be an "evil" act to the opposing species. Viewed objectively from beyond both species, the actions of each are just actions and have no "good" or "evil" attached to them, as their goals are the same. The observer must be truly neutral in order to judge the actions of the species objectively. In the human world, this is something that is impossible to do, as humans are a part of the system being evaluated and the actions in this system are directly effected by the outcome of actions. Interesting example... Just for the record, I never said anything about the species as the standard of morality. The standard of good, at least in my book, is the individual's life. It's a universal because we're all the same type of being with similar needs (more or less), but each person must process morality individually. That it is individual does not automatically make it subjective--the individual must pursue the facts and act accordingly or reality will come back to bite that person in the ass (see ostrich reference). But about your outside observers...again, anytime a party has an interest you assume they are not objective. I think this is groundless. A rational being can factor out his desires when reasoning. Feynman was a champion at this. I suppose I agree with your "non-absolutism" in the same sense that there is no absolute time. Except that we live in a world where we constantly use the concept of time and it's perfectly valid on our local scale, not subjective at all (at worst, insignificantly imprecise). My only concern is that your position tends to give license to other humans to act despicably and to justify it on grounds of having a "different" morality, there being no absolutes and all, when in fact they are just evil and need to be killed. We’re all human, and while there’s no absolute cosmic standard of morality outside our sphere, neither do we exist outside our sphere. But inside our sphere, morality is objectively definable based on the requirements of our natures as humans. And so the sniper is evil because he spreads misery, fear, and death. Phantom outside observers do not change the reality of it. Fear is the mind-killer. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Usually you just offer your anger freely and your smile rarely. In ignorance, anger is cheap and smile is costly. In knowledge, a smile is free and anger is extremely expensive. Make your smile cheaper and your anger more expensive.  "Peace and Benz -- The future, made in Germany" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Ice it's evening now...? Fear is the mind-killer. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
teller said: IceNine said: teller said: A moral code is a set of principles that guide man's actions so as to furthers his survival qua man. As such it doesn't have to be subjective...here's an example of a moral principle at work: Using your consciousness to focus and comprehend reality yields greater survival, whereas the ostrich philosophy of sticking your head in the sand does not improve your condition. There isn't anything subjective about this particular example moral element, is there? One method works, the other does not. Even when "viewed from the outside."
[/i] This falls under the heading of pragmatism. The value of our judgment lies in the observable consequences of our actions, therefore forming a worldview that supports the survival of the species is pragmatically sound, but it is still not objective, as the object of the action is to promote the survivability of the species. "Good" and "evil" in relation to pragmatism... "Good" is anything that helps the species survive and proliferate. "Evil" is that which hinders the goals of society or the proliferation of the species. Let's say that there were two species of intelligent animals that were equally dominant in an environment and that each of these species wanted to become the sole dominant species on their planet. The actions internal to each species would follow a set of rules that would allow them to flourish and would help them to multiply and increase in number. From the viewpoint of one of the species that wanted to dominate the planet, any act that caused the demise of significant numbers of the opposing species would be a "good" act whereas it would be an "evil" act to the opposing species. Viewed objectively from beyond both species, the actions of each are just actions and have no "good" or "evil" attached to them, as their goals are the same. The observer must be truly neutral in order to judge the actions of the species objectively. In the human world, this is something that is impossible to do, as humans are a part of the system being evaluated and the actions in this system are directly effected by the outcome of actions. Interesting example... Just for the record, I never said anything about the species as the standard of morality. The standard of good, at least in my book, is the individual's life. It's a universal because we're all the same type of being with similar needs (more or less), but each person must process morality individually. That it is individual does not automatically make it subjective--the individual must pursue the facts and act accordingly or reality will come back to bite that person in the ass (see ostrich reference). IceNine replied: Morality does not extend beyond humanity though, so humanity is the yardstick against which morality is measured. I will agree that most humans would agree that killing other humans is not acceptable, but this is a societal convention rather than a metaphysical construct that applies to all life. As you know, I do not agree with the idea of a universal morality, so I will always say that morality is subjective, as it is not 100% identical in all humans. If all humans were imbued with an identical sense of right and wrong, I would believe that morality was objective, but as it stands, different people believe different things and therefore there is no universal objective morality or definition of right (good) and wrong (evil). Teller continued: But about your outside observers...again, anytime a party has an interest you assume they are not objective. I think this is groundless. A rational being can factor out his desires when reasoning. Feynman was a champion at this. IceNine replied: Observations in physics are different than moral observations. It is much easier to be objective in scientific endeavors than it is in interpersonal judgments. When we look at physics, we see numbers, equations and theories; when we look at humans we see people, emotions and ourselves. Being truly detached is something that I believe 99.99% of all humans are incapable of, as the observer would have to take himself out of the equation and view everything as pure object. Let me put it this way: If you had to slaughter an innocent 6 year-old girl and viciously mutilate her in order to save ten people from death, would you do it? If you did it, was it right to slaughter the girl and perform what would otherwise be considered an attrocity? It depends upon how you view the value of life. Many people would say that you should not murder the little girl to save the other people while others would argue that the greater good was served by killing the girl and saving the ten other people. This is the central problem with "good" and "evil" in that there is no absolute judgment of right and wrong and different people view different situations differently. Let's take that example further: Let's say that you had to murder one 6 year-old girl in order to save the life of thirty people who had each murdered other people... would it be right to kill the girl to save the thirty lives? Teller continued: I suppose I agree with your "non-absolutism" in the same sense that there is no absolute time. Except that we live in a world where we constantly use the concept of time and it's perfectly valid on our local scale, not subjective at all (at worst, insignificantly imprecise). IceNine replied: But it is relative... Teller continued: My only concern is that your position tends to give license to other humans to act despicably and to justify it on grounds of having a "different" morality, there being no absolutes and all, when in fact they are just evil and need to be killed. We’re all human, and while there’s no absolute cosmic standard of morality outside our sphere, neither do we exist outside our sphere. But inside our sphere, morality is objectively definable based on the requirements of our natures as humans. IceNine replied: Society is the judge of right and wrong and individuals in society must adhere to the standards of behavior set by the majority consensus, therefore murder will always be wrong and unacceptable, as it does not promote the common good of humanity. Being objective means being uninfluenced by emotion or personal predjudices, so it would be nearly impossible for a person to be truly objective in matters of murder or "evil" that affects humanity, as the observers are a part of the system and are therefore subject to bias. Teller continued: And so the sniper is evil because he spreads misery, fear, and death. Phantom outside observers do not change the reality of it. IceNine replied: The sniper is certainly "evil" by human standards, but the suffering of millions of people is the same as the suffering of an ant to one beyond good and evil. I agree that the actions of murderers is reprehensible and I do not agree that their differing conception of morality should be an excuse for their behavior. As members of society, we are subject to the implied morality of the group, as the majority makes the laws. The vast majority of people condemn murder, so murder will always be against the laws of the people, but the laws of the people are not universal. ... [This message was edited Wed Oct 30 16:11:54 PST 2002 by IceNine] SUPERJOINT RITUAL - http://www.superjointritual.com
A Lethal Dose of American Hatred | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Teller... this is a fun topic and I am enjoying it!
SUPERJOINT RITUAL - http://www.superjointritual.com
A Lethal Dose of American Hatred | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IceNine said: Teller... this is a fun topic and I am enjoying it!
I am too Ice...this is the way debates are supposed to be...about ideas!Fear is the mind-killer. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
soulpower said: Usually you just offer your anger freely and your smile rarely. In ignorance, anger is cheap and smile is costly. In knowledge, a smile is free and anger is extremely expensive. Make your smile cheaper and your anger more expensive.
 my 
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IceNine said: Morality does not extend beyond humanity though, so humanity is the yardstick against which morality is measured. I will agree that most humans would agree that killing other humans is not acceptable, but this is a societal convention rather than a metaphysical construct that applies to all life. As you know, I do not agree with the idea of a universal morality, so I will always say that morality is subjective, as it is not 100% identical in all humans. If all humans were imbued with an identical sense of right and wrong, I would believe that morality was objective, but as it stands, different people believe different things and therefore there is no universal objective morality or definition of right (good) and wrong (evil).
Teller replied: We're in agreement that morality does not extend beyond humanity (in practice anyway), and that humanity is the standard, or yardstick as you put it. It's also a fact that we don't all have 100% identical ethical systems. However, we're all human, we all operate on a conceptual level, and we all have free will (except for the insane and the degenerate). These are universal attributes, and dictate certain behavior in order for us to live and thrive, and hence imply a set of ethics which are necessarily universal, such as the need for a reality-focus (as opposed to the aforementioned ostrich). Even your outside observers themselves, if they are intelligent, require a willful commitment to reality else they will quickly lose their superiority in their own realm. So again, parts of morality are highly subjective, but certain roots are objective and universal. I feel like I'm repeating myself a little bit here, but you haven't yet dealt directly with my ostrich, so there he is.
IceNine continued: Observations in physics are different than moral observations. It is much easier to be objective in scientific endeavors than it is in interpersonal judgments. When we look at physics, we see numbers, equations and theories; when we look at humans we see people, emotions and ourselves. Being truly detached is something that I believe 99.99% of all humans are incapable of, as the observer would have to take himself out of the equation and view everything as pure object. Teller replies: I hear this a lot, that philosophy isn't science, that human nature is incomprehensible compared to physics or other hard sciences. Baloney. Just because it's difficult doesn't make it unscientific. Emotions have a basis in reality just as a gas-explosions do. We're not very advanced in this study, which is where the "unscientific" flavor comes from, but still.
I suppose I have to agree that 99.99% of all humans are incapable of being truly detached. And yet it is still a objective virtue worth pursuing. The purpose of virtues is to guide us--that we sometimes (or often) fail does not make the struggle any less valuable. I am more detached today than I was at the age of 18 because I kept trying, because I regarded it as a virtue, and I'm all the more powerful for it. It works. IceNine continued: If you had to slaughter an innocent 6 year-old girl and viciously mutilate her in order to save ten people from death, would you do it? If you did it, was it right to slaughter the girl and perform what would otherwise be considered an attrocity? It depends upon how you view the value of life. Many people would say that you should not murder the little girl to save the other people while others would argue that the greater good was served by killing the girl and saving the ten other people. This is the central problem with "good" and "evil" in that there is no absolute judgment of right and wrong and different people view different situations differently.
Teller replies: I love these examples... In this case, the answer is obvious: I would not kill the 6-year-old. The poor ten people are victims of something awful, and that happens in life, but I won't force an innocent person to sacrifice herself for some number of strangers. My conscience is clean, I commit no atrocity. And while other people might come up with a different solution, that's because some people are right, some are wrong, some think, some don't. That other people lack an objective ethical system does not make an objective ethical system impossible.
Also, such thought experiments have little to do with ethics as life is not a series of bizarre and cruel tests--such events are rare, extreme, and only occur during emergencies, and I wouldn't hold it against anyone if they shit their pants during such an episode rather than acting fully 100% moral. IceNine continued: But it is relative...
Teller replies: I'll give you that. Relative and subjective are two different concepts, though.
IceNine replied: Society is the judge of right and wrong and individuals in society must adhere to the standards of behavior set by the majority consensus, therefore murder will always be wrong and unacceptable, as it does not promote the common good of humanity.
Teller replied: Majority consensus?! You lost me. The majority believe in God. Majority consensus has nothing to do with objectivity. The majority scares me half the time. Murder is wrong on philosophical grounds. That society happens to agree is nice, but the mob isn't the judge. The mob cannot fake out reality. They can try, but it won't work. Reality is very unforgiving about such things. The old Soviet Union had lots of people mouthing lots of wrong ideas about what constitutes the common good, and reality made them starve. The moral is the practical.
IceNine continued: The vast majority of people condemn murder, so murder will always be against the laws of the people, but the laws of the people are not universal.
Agreed...the laws of the people vary from place to place. Laws can be irrational. People can be irrational. But what ought to be (i.e., ethics) can be discovered by studying man's fudamental nature. Fear is the mind-killer. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |