Jack Kamm

Glad that you liked my moral code, stilus.

I think the biggest weakness in my "moral code" is that, even though it's in large part motivated by empathy, I don't have a rational reason to have empathy. I'm not you; why should it please me to please you?

I suppose that all desires are ultimately irrational though, and reason is just a slave of the passions (was it Hume who said this?). And I'm glad that empathy is a feeling that humanity has. A) I gain from others having empathy, and B) even when I give, I gain. Plus benevolent feelings motivated by empathy are often repaid.

Hope I didn't go too off topic, just wanted to point out a weakness (albeit a small one) in my own "ethics." Also, since empathy seems to play a large role in this discussion, wanted to bring up the question, "Why have empathy?"

dk

I don't disagree, so long as one doesn't postulate empathy as a bases of morality. Empathy allows a person to feel the pain of a complete stranger, or even an animal. There's people that feel a great empathy for spiders, and others people hate spiders. I would hardly call a person that hated spiders immoral, or justified. I personally don't see rhyme, reason or purpose for hating spiders or feeling their pain. [/quote]

Well the simple Christian answer is... God created the Universe, so everything in the Universe must be finite, or temporary. The idea that morality changes isn't contrary to the Bible, for example morality changed with Original Sin, and the crusifixion ressurection of Jesus Christ. The bible teaches that all people are created in God's image, there bound by the Law written on their hearts by God.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stilus
Excuse me for saying this, but what am I to do now? Do I really have to go into the depths of Aquinas' thoughts before I can claim you talk like you think morality is (A) an absolute that (B) you understand? Somehow I smell a smokescreen.

I tried to answer in the same spirit. If the word "absolute" and "temporary" mean the same thing,

Absolute means Temporary, then nothing is absolute, in this sense.
But then
Temporty means Absolute, so nothing really changes, in this sense.

This appears to be a contradiction, unless one considers everything a part of one thing, then change becomes the only absolute because nothing really changes. This describes a monistic reality.

There's no contradiction. A quick review of all the dead civilization shows God allows people to do as they please. Who made the Ancient Greeks bleed themselves to death fighting endless wars between city/states? Not God, I suppose you could blame the sophists. From a Christian perspective God created good and evil, and gave people free will to choose.
---
That's why I was surprised you brought up Herbert. I enjoyed reading Herbert, he told a good story. I agree the universe had a beginning and problobly has an end.

Jack Kamm

Not to offend anyone, but why does the Christian answer matter, especially on a board where the vast majority of people are not Christian?