“…However, having data from others, such as scientists, it seems clear that we all share pretty much the same innate moral sense, which suggests that relying on this is a safe way to construct a society. Many of the religious folk claim that if we each looked inside ourselves for our own morality, we'd all end up with different moral codes. The research of scientists suggests this isn't so.” – Taylor
Perhaps you or someone had addressed constructing a society earlier. I don’t think it came up for me. IF this is an important concept to you, perhaps you could expand a little more on it? The only suggestion about it I can think of may have been when I used the term ethos. >From my limited experience, I find that there are those who suggest differing moral codes would arise too. Yet, so far, I see no consistent common link when it comes to theism or atheism. I find it just is one of the rainbow of beliefs that people in general come up with. I’m guessing you are an atheist? Sorry, I just don’t remember. Guessing this to be the case, since it looks like we and scientists agree that there is an innate and common ethos, other than simple survival, do you find any other basis for this being the case? I would guess you don’t embrace teleology. I’ll share a little as to why I ask this. I am at a place where it seems clear that, based upon the unity of humanity (in an ultimate sense) the realization of and the transcendence of humanity to some of the states I have pointed to elsewhere, is not only an historical and inevitable reality, but in fact an absolute necessity for the survival of mankind. Of course I am in no way suggesting you should share this view. I merely present it to open the possibility of expanding this delightful discussion into even more diverse facets. On Nov 14, 5:24 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <<it looks like you are basing your position of “it IS” upon what > others have said. I > see this as at least a meme aspect of intellection. > > I find this quite different from a direct apprehension of “it IS” > which is what I would expect if you were sharing what you base your > view of the ‘innate’ aspect of ethics upon. >> > > If I understand you correctly, there are indeed two different aspects > to this question. I base my own morality on my own intuition, and > this would probably be true no matter what anyone else in the world > did, or what the scientists say. > > However, having data from others, such as scientists, it seems clear > that we all share pretty much the same innate moral sense, which > suggests that relying on this is a safe way to construct a society. > Many of the religious folk claim that if we each looked inside > ourselves for our own morality, we'd all end up with different moral > codes. The research of scientists suggests this isn't so. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
