CB, Yes, I saw that when I looked in to the "Spirituality" link on the front page. The book by Price that we just finished in the book club called TOP SECRET talked about that type of mysticism. I did not read all of it, Price, but I do recall in skimming that he mentioned Ekhart Tolle. Anyway, I will look at that article and see if I can come up with some info. from Naturalism.org about that topic and Tolle.
Taylor said >>> However, naturalism does call into question the basis for retributive attitudes, namely the idea that individuals could have done otherwise in the situation in which their behavior arose and so deeply deserve punishment. >> No, it doesn't. <<< Yes it does..."call into question the basis" "*Responsibility and morality:* From a naturalistic perspective, behavior arises out of the interaction between individuals and their environment, not from a freely willing self that produces behavior independently of causal connections (see above). Therefore individuals don't bear ultimate originative responsibility for their actions, in the sense of being their first cause. Given the circumstances both inside and outside the body, they couldn't have done other than what they did. Nevertheless, we must still hold individuals responsible, in the sense of applying rewards and sanctions, so that their behavior stays more or less within the range of what we deem acceptable. This is, partially, how people learn to act ethically. Naturalism doesn't undermine the need or possibility of responsibility and morality, but it places them within the world as understood by science. However, naturalism does call into question the basis for retributive attitudes, namely the idea that individuals could have done otherwise in the situation in which their behavior arose and so deeply deserve punishment. " stemcell On Nov 5, 11:56 am, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Printed the whole spiel out on the home page, but on further investigation, > found a name that makes me uneasy...Ekhart Tolle. So, I am dancing around > it with a suspicious eye. > > http://www.naturalism.org/spiritua.htm > > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > <<However, naturalism does call into question the basis for > > retributive attitudes, namely the idea > > that individuals could have done otherwise in the situation in which > > their behavior arose and so deeply deserve punishment. >> > > > No, it doesn't. The idea of punishment doesn't require any moral > > agent. If you are a punisher, you are part of the natural world that > > the organism deals with and it will adjust its behavior to avoid the > > punishment. If the punishment is swift, assured and unpleasant, the > > organism cannot do otherwise. > > > The idea of punishment being "deserved" is irrelevant. The only thing > > that's important is that it exists..- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
