Your punctuation is off, it should be: "I made three references; to yours, the Anti-H one, and the "Help the Needy one"
See, here, you have used a colon to indicate where the list begins.Let's change that order:
The Anti-H one, "Help the Needy" and PVC's.
I'm sorry, but you are just slightly grammatically wrong Beskar; though I accept that you did not mean to refer to me.It is still exactly the same, except out of order of how I made the statements.
It is part of the "Rule of Three" in the English language: "I think PVC is charming, handsome and witty". It doesn't mean "charming handsome and witty".
The basis of all ethics are a set of metaphysical and moral assumptions about the nature of the universe and our place within it; they were formed by Classical philosophers whoe were either theistic or Deistic, Plato's "forms" were like Gods, or aspects of "a God" because they were an ineffable ideal which was reflected in the natural world without the Form itself being identifyable present in said world.Nope. Why does not killing another person have to do with a range of named or unamed dieties? Was does treating another brother or sister with respect have anything to do with a deity? There is no reason for God to be there. God is just slapped on like a sticker. God even spoke about owning slaves, my morality rejects slavery.
Why does treating others like I want to be treated and that we are all as humans equal, have anything to do with any high power? I don't want to be murdered, so does the person next to be, so lets not murder. I want to say what is true, so does the person next to me, so lets speak the truth. It is all things based on freedom and liberty. To be able what you want to do, within a shared sense of order and social function.
It is the basics of ethics. God doesn't even need a place there.
The principle behind all this is "absolute truth", the belief that somewhere, out there, is a perfect reality and a perfectly "Right" way of interacting with that reality. In Christian thought this is termed "God".
The problem I see with your philosophy is that you are using Christian and Classical assumptions whilst having shawn them of their divine roots. Your ethics are necessarily free-floating, they are not grounded. All you have referenced as an anchor thus far is individual and group benefit, which can change with time and circumstance, but your moral positions appear fixed.
So, why are your positions fixed?
God has decreed that Pork is an unclean food and should not be eaten.
The argument for this back in the 'day' was as Cute Wolf said in the otherthread about pigs having a lot of parasites, spoils easy and was generally eaten quite raw in those days, which complicated matters.
So in the spirit of things:
God says Pork is Bad = Fluff
A reasonable and sound argument against the eating of pork in a desert = Argument[/QUOTE]
Bookmarks