On 21 Apr 2001, at 11:34, Alex Future Bokov wrote:
...>> The world is now
> > a different place, however, and religion is not a significant force
> > for first-world change.
> I think it is. The right wing agenda is of course deeply influenced,
> if not dictated by, religion. The left wing, IMO, is also-- some kind
> of odd animism. The following examples I thought up are religious
> statements because they infer some sort of inherent morality in the
> fabric of the universe:
1> "That is unnatural."
2> "It is wrong to cause pain."
3> "You are treating these lampreys in a cruel manner."
4> "Your attitude smacks of hubris."
5> "There are things humans were not meant to know."
> Compare to...
> "That is against the will of God."
> "God will strike you down."
> "What you are doing is sinful."
> "They are God's creatures."
> "Pride is a deadly sin."
> If there is a difference in the emotion underlying these two sets
> of quotes, I am unable to see it.
#Morality seems to be a human construct; certainly not inherent in
the universe, which clearly couldn't care less. Let's toss out the
God stuff. Statements 1 and 5 are ridiculous, 4 not quite because it
implies recklessness, which should always be pointed out. As to 2 and
3, well... I would say it was wrong of Hitler to kill 6 million
people, and that he treated them in a cruel manner. Same goes for
serial sickos, who invariably begin by torturing animals.
So what emotion lies at the base of such conclusions? Certainly
nothing religious. And I'd argue that it is perfectly rational to
conclude that such behavior is unacceptable, dangerous to society,
and not to be tolerated. One needn't exercise or indeed possess
emotions to reach this conclusion. There is also some indication that
those who feel no compassion toward animals feel none toward people,
and are likely to treat both the same. Compassion, yes an emotion. Oh
> - --
> PTA bugs bunny
> Why are the above words in my signature? Check out:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:49 MDT