Gun control is an easy issue. Would you like to take responsibility for the defense of your family and home, or surrender that responsibility to other people?
Quote by Chaos, Are people greedier than they were back then? No --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not so sure about that? Corporate America, CEO's leaving companies and being fired, taking huge sums of money with them and leaving the companies bankrupt? With your analogy, Our workforce of today would still be the same as 40 years ago. Today their is 0 Loyalty in most workplaces from employers and employees. Not like it used to be! We sure didn't have crime like we do today back then. We didn't have school shootings either. Kids didn't get snatched weekly either like they do today. I would disagree. Martin, There are religious lunatics along with the secular ones, the religious ones stand out of course because they do it in the name of a god.
Man may act greedier now than he did 40 years ago, but I don't think it's an innate change that's taken place. For one, people likely didn't have the same opportunities to take advantage of others as they do now. Corporate America is so much larger and there are simply way more folks with more responsibility and trust, thus being in a position to screw others over. Additionally, the competition, not only between companies, but also within them creates a lot of problems as well.
Have you ever known any "debateable" question to have only one answer? I once asked a preacher as I was leaving services, " If I won ten million dollars on the lottery and wanted to give 10% to our church, what would you say?" He thought about it for a few seconds and said, "I think the devil has had it long enough......Let's see what the Lord can do with it." :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:
There are several different GODS.......BUDDA..ALA...And I agree..My God has a sense of humor..Why.......you and red are poster boys for ABORTION RIGHTS.......You are also living proof that Indians used to sneak up and "have their way" with buffalo... :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: Before you get started---------------I'm TEASING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Morality is not subjective, and to say so is a copout, not having the courage nor conviction to call things as they are. Actions which are rational, beliefs that are true, are good.
define rational actions, define true beliefs. Is God real? Whether you think it's so or not doesn't make it true. Is jumping out of a perfectly good airplane rational? Once again, whether you think so or not doesn't make it true. You can only define them for yourself & thus you cannot define morality for other people. It is subjective.
Subscriber? No. That would insinuate a stonger influence on my principles than actually exists. I do believe that now and again it is wise to consider the cause of the greater good above ones' self. However, when that is applied to an endless combination of circumstances, each with varying degrees of impact, the intrinsic value of the action is reduced to an undoubtedly faulty standard. If you focus on the second part of the statement you quoted, you'll notice that I mentioned subjectivity. This is ulitmately the downfall of Utilitarianism. If I were a 'subscriber' to someone like Mill, I would constantly find myself trapped in an unsolvable engagement of Utilitarian calculus. I would have to place a value on every causation of my actions, and determine which option benefits 'the greater good' the most. Utilitarianism offers very little in the way of determining which acts are intrinsically superior to others in particular circumstances, and as such, renders itself to the deep pitfall of subjectivity. It leaves itself quite vulnerable to a thought pattern that can be far too easily manipulated simply to justify ones' actions, regardless of the end result. But, like I said, there are times when the answer to such a riddle seems obvious, and that it is appropriate to place others above yourself. Maybe what you'd call a non-Kantian Utilitarian???
