BolshyFaker

The point has already kind of been made (i.e. that some cultures practice things with their kids that comes into our defintion of child abuse, did you know some of the French philosophers campaigned for changes to society's condmenation of child abuse? ) but it seems to me this is the most important flaw in sotzo's argument.

Sotzo, do you have ANY PROOF of intrisic morality rather than (as materialsim/EP posits) socially developed morality? Even on basic things such as "unjust killing" our definition is not intrinsic to ourselves but is reliant on society - as a proof, look at the unjust killings commited by several very different societies, The Crusaders, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia and most recently the terrorist strain of Islam.

If our definition of unjust killing is intrisic to us (rather than to our society) then why does everyone disagree? If you can see that some morals are socially developed then why can't you accept that all are? Aslo, surely the idea that morals are intrinsic could be (brutally) tested. All you would need is several new born children and "families" willing to teach them "warped", and "correct", morals and see how successful they were at reversing pre-defined notions of "intrinsic morality". Of course on one level theres no need to do this since the world does it for us.

BolshyFaker - PS been lurking on this post for a few days now and its one of the most interesting and well argued Ive ever read on infidels. Sotzo, even though I disagree with you and think your argument is (arguably) breaking down, well done for an intelligent debate.

PPS - - yeah right, thats why GW is about to attack Iraq! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[edited for typos]

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: BolshyFaker ]</p>

Vorkosigan

<strong>
......They take it as proven that the man cares only for the wealthy.

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: RogerLeeCooke ]</strong>[/QUOTE]

I've deleted your post and moved it to Politics.

Vorkosigan

Starboy

The scientific point of view is to withhold judgment until sufficient facts are available to make a decision. Even so, the decision is always tentative and can be changed if contradictory facts come to light.

Whereas the religious point of view is to come to a conclusion with or without facts and to hold to it even if contradictory evidence comes to light.

The first is science the second is faith. It is hard to see how they could be confused unless the confused was also ignorant of science.

Starboy