In a message dated 10/29/1999 7:24:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time, email@example.com writes:
<< Reptar (or whatever) who didn't seem to share my understanding of the point of morality - I was asking for his. >>
Ah... Reptar - so you watch the Rugrats as well as Aly McBeal? cool!
I don't agree with any 'set' point of morals. I seek understanding, which is quite different from believing I *have* understanding. Morality is very complex, and has meny points of direction, and i don't claim to be a philosopher, or bore the list with my own explorations of the field.
<< The point I raised in my original post was not that morality should be
ditched and we should all conduct our lives conscience-free, but that the
"rulebook" method of morality propagation is counter-productive, a situation
I feel could be remedied at a price of more thought on the part of the
I never disagreed with that, i disagreed with the statement you amde, which i
deleted, which i called simplistic. The "no one's gonna tell me what to do
goddamit" argument. And overly simplified. Rulebooks have been useful in the
past, a large part of teh Old Testement was devoted to hygene and what the
tribe should and should not eat. The problem is partly cultural, partly
socialogical, partly geo/demographical. The uncertain terrain I was speaking
of - in fact - backs your claim!
For a rulebook to work, it must be for a small segment of populace, and be voluntary.
Our world expands exponentially, and in ways we cannot forsee. SO therefore, many of our current rulebooks are obsolete and stupid.
That doesn't mean "throw out all rules except those that suit me".