BS: Ethics

Subject: BS: Ethics
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 08:29 PM

This covers a few subjects, at least half a dozen!
but I don't see any point in starting a seperate one for each subject unless there is enough interest just yet.

This is clearly listed as BS: NON Music, if your'e not interested look no further, quit your moaning!

Abortion-Right or wrong?
Capital Punisment " "
Eauthanasia       " "
Experiments on Animals " "
War "   "


Discuss-, I will give my opinions on each subject in 24 hours from now, I'm interested in learning yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Allan C.
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 08:34 PM

I have great hope for the youth in Asia.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 08:36 PM

You're off on a pegleg if you expect to come up with determinations in the abstract. Abortion and war can be profoundly repugnantly wrong or heroically right, depending on the circumstances. So can any other decision.

IMO, the criteria of an ethical decision is the benefit it brings to the futures of those involved. Based entirely on the context in which it is taken.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Bassic
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 08:43 PM

jOhn, its 1.45am I am just about to go to bed, about the only thing I can say about Ethics is that it is somewhere near Thufolk and Thurry and SkipjacK likes to go sailing there! Nite Nite. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 09:02 PM

Oh.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 09:04 PM

Abortion: Until the progeny develops personhood, its needs must be subjugated to that of persons, such as the mother. Therefore, until a fetus has developed to the point where it can be safely removed from the mother without causing her harm, abortion is morally acceptable.

Capital punishment: Acceptable only in cases where BOTH A) a determination of guilt has been made whose probability of error is less than one in ten thousand, and B) rehabilitation is non-feasible.

Euthanasia: It is only acceptable to euthanize a person with their competent consent. No other factors should play a role.

Experiments on animal: As non-persons, their needs are subjugated to that of persons. Thus, medical experimentation for the purpose of genuinely health-related research is acceptable, provided that the subjects are non-sentient; cosmetic research is not.

War: Acceptable only when it is for the purpose of either self-defense or the defense of a nation or population which is threatened with subjugation or extermination AND has requested aid. Commercial or political influence must not be intended aims, nor may they be gained at the expense of any nation except a unilateral aggressor.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 09:12 PM

Thanks Forum Lurker, not sure who you are or where you are but we seem to agree!
Not sure about the capital punisment though, I'm not sure it's ever justifiable, I used to be in favour of it, I changed my mind, I'll explain why tommorow.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 09:20 PM

tommorow never comes!
A friend of mine was tried, and convicted of murder, I don't agree with the death penalty.
If we as a society kill killers, aren't we as bad as them?
If not worse, ie, a killer may kill on the spur of the moment, without thought for his actions, if we as a society have the death penalty in place is that not a pre-meditated killing?

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 09:22 PM

You guys aren't discussing ethics -- you're working up a moral code for your subculture! Velly diffelent!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 09:34 PM

Amos- One needs to state a position before it can be debated. If you would care to share your beliefs, we could begin a discussion. Since no one had posted before I did, I didn't have any groundwork to go on, so I laid it. Feel free to build or not as it pleases you.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 09:34 PM

Ethics 1= A set of principles for right conduct.
2=A theory or system of moral values.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 10:55 PM

There is a world of difference between a principle for right conduct and a culturally introduced arbitrary moral stricture. The former is a matter of rationality, the latter a matter of holding agreements made in the group, such as "don't eat fish on Friday" or "don't eat pork" as a rule which has no application outside its cultural base.

How you sort out "right action' depends on what is genuinely going to bring about the most good for the most parts of any given puzzle.

That is very different from "agreed upon codes" which are moral agreements about how to act, cultural mores. I hope the difference is clear...

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 11:49 PM

ANyway, I didn't mean to snuff your fun, so please carry on!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 12:34 AM

Ah Ethics...

Some years ago, my boss at Telstra, tried to get internal charges laid against me for misusing computer resources. I had written some job apps, using the time sharing system.

However, I was able to prove that at the same time, he was using the same system to wrtie away to America for Books for his personal use on the subject of Ethics in The Workplace... :-)

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: mack/misophist
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 12:58 AM

Abortion should be the woman's decision. Till the 3rd trimester, anyway.

Capital punishment is right in principle. The difficulty is that we can't trust our courts to be right. So, no capital punishment.

Euthanasia should be like all other medical procedures; informed consent should be required. Personally, I'd like the freedom to define my desires in advance, just in case.

War? There are just wars, never doubt it. Pre-emptive first strikes are almost impossible to justify.

The question of experiments with animals is easy to answer but difficult to explain. Pointless or frivolous experiments are anathema.
Cruel experiments are hateful, and probably illegal. If it's the only way to answer a necessary question, then do it. Of course, every one of these adjectives is open to argument. That's the trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 01:29 AM

Right....

Okay.

Abortion-Right or wrong?

Depends on the individual circumstances.

Capital Punisment " "

Probably not necessary or advisable at all during peacetime, but again, it depends on the individual circumstances. In war, one must sometimes resort to drastic measures (in the case of the breakdown of normal civil order, as in looting, etc...)

Eauthanasia       " "

Depends on the individual circumstances...and the consent of the euthanized.

Experiments on Animals " "

Depends on the individual circumstances, and the effect on the animals. Some (few) experiments are actually quite enjoyable for animals, while others may be horrific. I would be inclined not to hurt animals if at all possible, but one has to consider what else is at stake too.

War "   "

When attacked (directly and obviously by a clearly identifiable enemy) one obviously has the right and obligation to fight back effectively and protect oneself. This does not equate to having the right to invade a distant country because some mysterious group of people who might have had some backing from that country and might be located in it apparently did something to your country. That is to say, America had no real moral basis for invading either Afghanistan or Iraq, but they managed to concoct some great dramatic excuses in their fairly transparentearch for Caspian and Iraqui oil reserves. (I'm speaking of America's leaders, not its general public.)

Again, it depends upon the individual circumstances. Politicians decide to go to war over issues of power and resources...they then set about finding spurious moral justification for it, so that their public will support what is essentially a very immoral and crazy form of behaviour. They do not grasp the concept of human unity.

It would be great if reality could be reduced to a simple set of Do and Don't rules...but life is just not that simple...unless you are colossally brave. Only people like Jesus or Gandhi are that courageous, and other people usually end up killing them, which serves to illustrate the point in the most dramatic manner possible...that if you really intend to love humanity and life, then you'd better be prepared to sacrifice yourself on their behalf when it proves necessary.

May I add to the list...

UFO aliens exist...True or False?

Crop circles are not all made be humans...True or False?

God exists...True or False? (Be very careful to accurately define the particular nature of the theoretical God you are talking about...specially if you're setting out to prove that he/she/it doesn't exist! :-)

Polital parties - Right or Wrong?

Myself, I think they are a curse upon humanity, and will be seen a few hundred years from now as a very primitive phase we went through in our political development...just a step or two beyond the primitive concept of hereditary monarchs and "divine right" of same.

Immortal soul/afterlife - true or false?

That oughta keep everyone busy for a bit...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 01:39 AM

I was drifting away from moral questions there, wasn't I? Sorry!

Let's try again.

Violence - right or wrong?

Greed - right or wrong?

Lust - right or wrong?

Laziness - right or wrong?

Envy - right or wrong?

Hatred - right or wrong?

Telling lies - right or wrong?

Cheating - right or wrong?

Masturbation - right or wrong?

Extra-marital sex - right or wrong?

Cannibalism - right or wrong?

Espionage - right or wrong?

Assassination - right or wrong?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 01:42 AM

UFO Aliens: They cannot be proven not to exist, but there is no rational cause for belief in them, as the energy expenditure necessary to reach us from the nearest potentially industrialized planet is sufficient that they should have attempted some form of contact, peaceful or not, as a return on their investment.

Crop circles: It is possible that some are caused by purely natural occurences, such as freak downdrafts, but in general unlikely. There is no rational cause to believe that some intelligent, nonhuman agency would attempt, as its sole method of contact, making circles in someone's crops.

God: The Judeo-Christian deity, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, cannot exist in light of natural (as opposed to moral, humancaused) evil, but insufficent empirical evidence exists either way for a deity lacking one of these properties.

Political Parties: they are polar factions, and a necessary outgrowth of Western polar thought. They are no more and no less evil than the philosophy that spawns them.

Afterlife: By definition, the afterlife is beyond our current existence; most beliefs regarding it indicate that living humans cannot, in fact, see or otherwise perceive the afterlife in any way. Thus, it is an untestable proposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 01:44 AM

All of those things mentioned in Little Hawk's second post are not categorically wrong, save laziness; most are usually wrong, excepting lust, masturbation, and cannibalism, which are perfectly natural and in and of themselves lack any moral significance.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 06:38 AM

Too many issues here I feel. That means not much chance of a continuous discussion on the issues involved, if we talk about them.

I think Amos's if to get it down beneath the specifucas to the underlying question is teh right way to go - and the underlying question is how do we distinguish between rules that are essentially a metter of particular cultures, and rules which apply regardless of cultures.

Very often people will take as if there is no distinction - as if a cultural rule that you have a duty to kill your daughter or son in certain circumstances if no different from a rule that you should take your hat off in church.

What appears to be the case is that all cultures have rules which outlaw killing of other human beings except in certain circumstances - the circumstances vary according to culture, but they generally seem to centre round the idea of defence against some kind of threat.

So far as I am concerned I would wish to live in a culture in which the circumstances in whch killing was allowed was restruicted as narrowly as possible, whch essentially means to cases where it is the unintended consequences of preventing greater harm being done to other people.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 09:42 AM

The answer to all your questions is yes, little hawk.

Kevin, I was distinguishing between moral agreements which are born as cultural constrsaints, such as hats in chuirch or killing your first born on Friday if there are too many locusts this year, versus rationasl choices made for the highest good stemming from the situiation at hand. One of them is a bunch of arbitrary and oftenauthoritarian agreements that make up moral codes. The other is rationality and analysis being applied to the question of right action. Occasionally the two intersect. Not often,t hough!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: mack/misophist
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 11:05 AM

Forum Lurker was almost dead on with his comments on Little Hawks question. With the exception of cheating, I think a positive case can be made for each of those actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: GUEST,Skipjack K8
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 11:13 AM

Thanks, Gord, I am orf to Ethics right now, for a weekends sailing, interspersed with those salty dogs the Slingbacks, who are making people feel seasick in Heybridge Basin.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 12:24 PM

Does anyone here listen to the Grand Ole Opry?

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 12:25 PM

Ha! Ha! Ha! Brilliant answer, Amos! I think you may be on the verge of enlightenment... :-)

Forum Lurker - The best evidence in support of UFO aliens is actual cases of people seeing them, photographing them, etc. Once that has happened one sets about wondering about all the various other questions you raised, rather than just automatically assuming "it ain't possible". But...until a significant majority of people are agreed that they do exist...or until the government officially says they do...such personal testimonials will be discounted by most people, and photographic evidence will be discounted also (as a fake or a misinterpretation), and physical evidence will be discounted or locked away in a lab somewhere and forgotten. That's the way it goes.

Conventional thinking has a way of perpetuating itself by sheer repetition and inertia.

Ditto for crop circles.

Political parties are "no more and no less evil than the philosophy that spawns them." Agreed! But the word I would use for that philosophy is "primitive" rather than "evil", although it has produced certain rather evil effects.

God - If God is in fact infinite, thus beginning nowhere, being everywhere, and ending nowhere...then ALL empirical evidence can be taken as evidence of the existence of God. It just depends on what concept you have of God, that's all, and how you interpret the evidence. If, of course, you believe in a God that is somehow separate from "us", then you've got a real problem and no, it doesn't really make sense under the existing circumstances.

Let me draw an analogy. Suppose a jellyfish, made of millions of cells, and very much alive was the whole cosmos, the whole of existence. Suppose that each one of its living cells was a separate thinking being and they started talking among themselves about a "supreme being", their idea of God. That supreme being would be the whole jellyfish. Now if the little cells started looking around for this God, they wouldn't find him, would they? They would find each other. Hmmmm. What would really be tragic would be if some of those cells disagreed with others about what God was actually like, and started fighting wars over it. That would be kind of like cancer breaking out in the jellyfish. That's rather like what people do on this planet a good deal of the time.

Fortunately, the jellyfish has a strong enough immune system that it can handle this sort of thing, but the little cells don't always do so well on a local basis.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 12:47 PM

Suppose a jellyfish, made of millions of cells, and very much alive was the whole cosmos, the whole of existence.

Talk about being on the "verge of enlightenment" (wherever that is), this man has the whole enchilada in a siongle jellyfish!!! Like, Wow, man!!

Little Hawk gives new defintiion to the whole concept of "far out".

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 12:51 PM

Been up all night, Amos? Or are you just excited?

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 01:31 PM

Of course jellyfishes aren't self sufficient - they still have to eat, and float about in the ocean.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 01:59 PM

Little Hawk:

When you come up with Jellyfish Cosmologies and their ilk, I have to jump up and down to keep myself from swooning.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: AliUK
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 03:33 PM

I live in a jellyfish...eeurgh!! What a revoltin´ idea. I always felt that the universe was a beautiful cloud that sometimes gets a little top heavy and has to storm now and again. Ethically I think that clouds are better cosmological analogies than jellyfish. Maybe Even a gobstopper (jawbreaker to you American people) is a good analogy as well, as it´s spherical and lasts a long time just like the universe might possibly be.

         Rainbow Flowerchild

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 03:59 PM

Little Hawk, I think you ought to listen to Rainbow Flowerchild -- maybe even make a pilgrimage to her place.

It would enable you to take the big plunge rather than hovering on the verge!!

And, y'know, sphericality has its merits, too...

LOL!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 04:10 PM

Please, no prejudice here against our fellow creatures. Here's a picture of a beautiful jellyfish.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 07:53 PM

OK -- so I should adapt a Jellyfish Cosmology and commit gross disrespect to elephants, turtles, lions, hawks, sea-slugs and sea-urchins?

This is a very difficult decision -- whom should I say the Cosmos is most like? Oh, dear, oh dear!! It is so difficult to be fair!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 09:18 PM

Amos-The problem is that reason alone does not provide any motive at all, as described by Hume. There must be some underlying desire that drives you. There is nothing in the idea of "rational" which dictates whether one should be altruistic, selfish, or any balance between the two, because reason alone doesn't induce any action, only show what actions will result in which ends.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 11:10 PM

Altruism is a marvelous thing. I think a cloud is an excellent analogy for the universal field of being, and some people would probably like it better than a jellyfish.

Remember, it's just an analogy, nothing more. The cosmic jellyfish I was speaking of was not swimming around in a larger ocean, it was the whole shebang, ocean included.

I have already taken the "big plunge" several times, Amos, so I don't really need to go on a pilgrimage to visit Rainbow Flowerchild. (and I was making an oblique reference to your somewhat chaotic spelling in that one post when I suggest you were overtired or excited...)

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: mack/misophist
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 11:20 PM

Dear Forum Lurker:

A completely rational person is altruistic, on occasion, because it's the right thing to do, because it feels good, and because a completely rational person can still do whatever they feel like doing. Some researchers say that our dna predisposes us to sacrifice for our blood kin. Coming from a small family and hating children as I do, that means all you bastards out there are my family. That's why we should all try to make the world a better place than it was when we got here.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 09:42 AM

FL:

Sure -- but reason without goals is an abstract and synthetic thing anyway. Real reason as found in life   also seeks the accomplishment of long term good for some area. Rationality strives for a good which in the final analysis is that which brings about optimum futures for self and symbiotes and the forms associated therewith.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 12:28 PM

"Some researchers say that our dna predisposes us to sacrifice for our blood kin."

God! How brilliant they must be to reach that conclusion! (sarcasm) After all, squirrels, birds, cats, and most other animals are generally predisposed to sacrifice for their blood kin, so why on earth wouldn't humans be?

They do research to find out things like this? DNA is simply part of the whole pattern, and the pattern is formed by purposeful consciousness. The DNA is like a fingerprint of that consciousness.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 02:00 PM

Can't let your DNA walk all,over you. Being able when needs be to overcome that kind of call of the blood is part of what being human is about.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: mack/misophist
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 06:29 PM

Little Hawk:

Even though the answers to some questions seem obvious, proof is still needed. That;s why Harry Harlow is in every Intro to Psyche book on the planet.

PS. Squirrels, birds, cats, and most other animals don't give a shit about their blood kin once they've grown. Bears tend to think they're tasty.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 08:07 PM

So, there's more good evidence that we are a bit more advanced spiritually than our animal cousins. We often continue caring even after our kin are grown.

Now if someone would just go about proving scientifically how and why water is wet...we could all rest easier.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 08:22 PM

Or more advanced gastronomically...

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 09:50 PM

/thread drift/
i wonder if humans are the worst behaved species of animals?
You never see rabbits or hedgehogs etc forming armies, and invading and killing etc, they just seem to live piecefully.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 10:23 PM

Well, chimpanzees do engage in rape, infanticide, and genocide. Then again, they are considered to be our closest genetic relatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 10:34 PM

Chimpanzees engage in genocide?

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 11:21 PM

You could make a very good case for humans being both better and worse behaved than animals. That's because humans have a greater measure of free will and independent thought, which makes them score higher at both ends of the moral divide, if you could call it that. They are, like gods, capable of extraordinary creativity and extraordinary destructiveness. Such are the burdens of higher intelligence.

Rabbits aren't entirely peaceful by any means. The males fight a lot over mating and territory, but their fights do not usually do much physical damage. I'm not too sure about hedgehogs.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 05 Oct 03 - 02:57 AM

John from Hull-Yes, chimpanzees have been known on occasion to completely wipe out other troops, to the last ape. This differs from human genocide only in that chimpanzee social groups are much smaller than ours.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Oct 03 - 01:56 PM

Talking of which there's always Dubya...

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Mark Clark
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 02:23 AM

As folks have pointed out, jOhn’s questions are really moral in nature rather than ethical. But even as moral questions, the answers are highly dependent on the social and religious climate in which they are asked. If divine codes of behavior are eliminated, a society is free to answer these questions in any way that pleases its members.

• Abortion-Right or wrong?
     Different answers for different people. If you are a Christian, you believe it is wrong. Does that mean it should be outlawed? No! Not everyone is a Christian and God has already instructed Christians to leave the judgement stuff to Him. No need to pass laws based purely on a religious belief. Believers will act acording to their own faiths and non-believers will either be punished for all eternity or suffer no consequence whatever, depending on ones belief system.
  
• Capital Punisment " "
     There are very few societies in which capital punishment is considered acceptable, the primary ones being the U.S. and China. Again the answer depends on the moral or religious code to which the responder subscribes. If one is a Christian, capital punishment is not to be supported.
  
• Euthanasia       " "
     Again the answer depends on who is being asked. Killing is outlawed because it isn't practical, in a civilized society, to have folks killing each other all the time. Where the killing of a person is inconsequential (e.g., abortion and capital punishment) civil laws may permit killing. Euthanasia is another form of killing that has no negative civil consequences. Religious prohibitions against euthanasia are tied more to the afterlife than to temporal practicality. In cases where death is the only possible outcome, prolonged suffering has value only for the spiritual well-being of people who believe it has value. Again, judgement is a divine responsibility not one we need to implement here.
  
• Experiments on Animals " "
     Same answer. Many religions, Christianity included, hold that mankind is charged with looking after all creatures and may not put them to such uses. For the most part, those religions do not permit their adherents to enforce their points of view outside the religious group. Penalties for violating religious codes vary with the religion. Religious groups may hold that non-belivers are also subject to divine judgement but from a purely civil point of view, experiments on animals can offer signigicant benefits to society.
  
• War "   "
     The arguments are much the same. Is there any point to human existance? If not, war is just another strategy for dominance. Does life have value? How is the value of a single life balanced against the value of the group. Christianity is interesting because Christians are told that their personal choices are more important to God than what happens to them as individuals or as members of a group.
  

There has never been, nor is there likely to be, any general agreement on these issues but our fascenation with them has been the subject of most human dialog throughout history.

But then again, perhaps this thread will finally resolve these issues.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 12:32 PM

I've never been able to imagine an exterior entitiy whosae scope was all Creation, but whose interest was fixated on what I did or did not do with one of my many body parts. It made absolutely no sense. Still doesn't.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 12:55 PM

Well of course it doesn't make any sense. An entity whose scope is all Creation cannot by definition be exterior, and what you do with your body parts is your own business!

I'd deluge you with another 20,000 words on the subject, but I've got to go downtown right now...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 04:32 PM

And then again, how can one imagine the infinite anyway? I think you are probably mistaken in your theoretical assumption that God is (or needs to be) fixated on any of your activities, Amos. :-) I would think that at best he/she/it is merely mildly interested in a compassionate sense, certainly not fixated, while, of course, being involved at the cellular and energetic level in an unprejudiced and egalitarian manner...meaning with everyone else at the same level.

What I'm saying is that the supreme being is not required to fit inside the definitions that various people and religions have concocted concerning it. This applies equally well to the opinions of religious people and atheists both, not to mention agnostics and existentialists.

Don't bug me if you can't believe in the only God you are capable of imagining when you hear the word "God".

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 05:17 PM

Don't worry, LH!! I am sure I won't be bugging you to define God for me, and I assure you I was only addressing a local aberration, not my cosmology by any means, Sorry I didn't ensure that you could   understand that, lard brain. It was probably my fault.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 05:56 PM

LOL! Right you are, Amos. I deliberately misunderstand you sometimes, just to be annoying... You have rightly referred to me as "lard brain" this time. Maybe all this jousting with Clinton Hammond is causing me to become anti-social or something. Either that or it's the mold in my carpet.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 06:20 PM

I have the same thing in the office -- every time I go there to work for the company, mold sets up a whirring in my brain and I can't think straight. Either that or there are certain psychological stances that have the exact same effect as mold in the air.
A good argument for the psychosomatic theory of medicine.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Mark Clark
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 06:42 PM

And I didn't mean to be defining God for anyone either. I only meant that most moral codes are handed down from someone's god or other. If we're talking about moral codes that don't need any higher authority for universal applicability, what would those be? And why would they exist?

Most atheists I know hold to a higher (to my way of thinking) set of moral and ethical standards than most Christians I know. One problem I have with most Christians is that they mistakenly believe God wants them "fix" everyone else, by force if need be. I see that as a most un-Christian point of view. You don't see Buddhists running around doing that, or atheists either for that matter.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 07:19 PM

Morals are arbitrary and local to a culture or a sub-culture (such as a church or an ethnic group). They are sustained by agreement and the reason you feel bad about violating a more (such as not covering yourself in church or eating the wrong food on the wrong day) is because of the broken agreement, not because you feel you've done something harmful per se. But the rationality of seeking right action and doing whatever is the greatest good is inherent in human rationality and derives from universal principles, not local ones. If you violate your own sense of ethics, you feel bad because you know you've done less than good by your own reason, whether or not others have agreed--which is a lot more painful.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 07:25 PM

Much of the time there seems to be general consensus about ethical principles - but when it comes to applying them to real situations and deciding what are the appropriate exceptions that the problems come in.

Like, we might find we are fully agreed that theft is wrong - but the you say "Theft means when anyone takes my property", and I say "Property is theft" and it's pretty clear we disagree about some important details.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 08:12 PM

Amos-While I agree in principle, I'm not sure whether there can be any "right action" which isn't purely subjective without some agency beyond humanity handing down the necessary principles.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 08:17 PM

without some agency beyond humanity handing down the necessary principles.


         

That sure ain't gonna happen, FL!!

And if it did, I would be inclined to double check their arithmytick.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 08:19 PM

Well, that's certainly a valid viewpoint, and one which I share. Unfortunately, it throws into question whether any morality can exist beside the purely subjective.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Joybell
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 09:14 PM

Oh! dear slept in again! This wonderful thread has already run off in all directions and I do so want to get enlightenment. Wait for me wait for me. I need time to study the jellyfish and the mould and the station will be empty and the train gone before I'm packed and ready. I have just one comment that hasn't been addressed as far as I can tell. -- If you are going to do animal testing then I do think it is only fair to allow them the time to study up first. I feel strongly about that as one who never seems to be ready.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 10:53 PM

"Purely subjective" morality is probably the purest and most moral sort there is, pal! You certainly are not going to find the sense of justice anywhere in material systems; it is a spiritual value, in the final analysis. Objectivity has its uses, true, but it is not a be-all or end-all!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 02:15 AM

The problem with purely subjective morality is that it provides no way in which people can agree on morality, excepting expedience. If all morality is subjective, it is no more wrong for me to kill someone than for me to eat yogurt, should I not have any more moral compunctions regarding one than the other. This strikes me as a flimsy way to build a societal contract.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 12:20 PM

Hmmmm. Well, I agree that most ethical notions are arbitrary, and depend upon cultural agreements, but...

Here's my notion of very basic ethics:

That which is in favour of life and liveliness, in a general sense, is positive (helpful, constructive) while that which is opposed to life and liveliness, in a general sense, is negative (harmful, destructive).

Example: Smashing up property is harmful. Building a house or a piece of furniture is helpful. Being crabby and hostile is negative. Being cheerful and friendly is positive. Being cowardly is negative, being courageous is positive. And so on...

I believe it is from such very basic things that societies and cultures develop most (but not necessarily all) of their ideas about ethics. It's pretty simple really.

A clever mind can always propose exceptions to the above, but as a general guideline I think it works.

Going by that guideline, I should pay attention and learn to be less crabby and critical at times, obviously... :-)

- LH

p.s. Mark - I have known of at least 2 atheists in this area who DID go about trying to force everyone else to be atheist too, by persuasion, harassment, legal action, etc...so it can happen. But fortunately it's rather rare. In some of the Communist societies you had a whole government that was forcing everyone to be outwardly atheist! Of course, what they were really doing was trying to supplant older God-based religions with a new materially-based one called "Communism". Same old shit in a brand new package, complete with its very own holy scriptures and prophets (Marx & Engels).

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 01:05 PM

Amos-While that's a pretty workable scheme in general, it doesn't have any more moral weight to it than "every man for himself" or any other system. If only humans make moral codes, then every human-made moral code has equal weight, subject only to one's ability and willingness to impose your code on others.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 01:19 PM

There are any number of animal species which have moral codes too, and most of the individuals can be seen to conform to those codes pretty consistently, while those who don't get into trouble with the rank and file. Observe wolves, elephants, herd animals, etc., for evidence of this. Crows, who have a complex community life, have even been know to hold what certainly appear to be "trials" over an individual crow who has violated the code. They all discuss it for awhile. Then, if he's found guilty, they kill him (or her as the case may be).

As I said before, actions which are plainly constructive are generally seen as good by most if not all community members, while actions that are plainly destructive are seen as bad by pretty well everyone except the perpetrator.

Thus, our ideas about ethics are not entirely arbitrary by any means.

Most people are inclined to be fairly constructive most of the time, unless they are suffering great fear, and upon that is based our considerable ability to cooperate and form healthy societies...as do wolves, crows, and elephants.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 05:18 PM

If only humans make moral codes, then every human-made moral code has equal weight, subject only to one's ability and willingness to impose your code on others.

I'm a Jeffersonian, and I have a high degree of confidence in rational humanity recognizing rationality. I have also learned to expect that irrational humanity will gravitate toward irrationality. Moral codes are not the point; the ability of the individual to reason with clarity toward a positive goal of some kind is the point.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 05:44 PM

Exactly. Responsible leaders encourage people to reason with clarity toward positive goals. Irresponsible leaders encourage people to react emotionally and disregard reason (or use it only very selectively in service of their own prejudices)...usually with very negative results for someone, if not everyone. The South and the North in the 1860's could, with a measure of goodwill and reason on both sides, have avoided fighting the Civil War, for instance, but instead they got very emotional and punitive, and fell right into the gaping abyss. Five years later, could anyone have asserted that it was "a good idea"? Slavery would have died a natural death in any case, not too far down the line.

Now, a philosophy that asserts that all ethics are simply arbitrary and that life, in effect, has no meaning opens the door to the most destructive and disastrous actions imaginable....like, for instance, creating atomic bombs or even hydrogen bombs, and atomizing cities full of people with them.

Of course, fanatics who think life does have meaning (according to their particular religion) sometimes do such things too, in the name of their religion.

It comes back to the basics. Are you building and assisting life in a general sense or are you destroying it? If one is destroying life wholesale in the name of liberty, freedom, or Christ I suspect that there is a massive exercise in hypocrisy going forward under the usual patriotic banners.

The real game in such cases is not the establishment of liberty or freedom nor is it in service to Christ...it's merely "winning" an insane competitive game that should never have been played in the first place.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: GUEST,devilsadvocate
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 05:53 PM

on pre-emptive strikes
in 1934 Poland made an offer to France that they fight a pre-emptive war against Nazi Germany. it didnt happen although it mightve saved millions of lives.

in 1981 Israel bombed the Osirak Nuclear reactor in Baghdad
(a nuclear reactor in one of the worlds most oil rich nations)
an act condemned around the world, but tacitly supported by most of the powers. (morally justified - absolutely although the only casualty was a French physicist)

when Vietnam invaded Cambodia, in the late 70s' and ended PolPots murderous bloodbath, it certainly doesnt fit Little Hawks moral principles of war - self defence, etc. and yet there was very little
international opposition to the invasion - Even though the Vietnamese reasons were far from humanitarian.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 06:16 PM

This is actually an interesting conversation!! Thanks, guys and gals!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 06:41 PM

Very good, devilsadvocate. I agree that there can be occasional exceptions to virtually any particular rule anyone can lay down.

I have always felt that the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia was, under the circumstances, the best thing that could have happened there at the time. The alternatives were absolutely horrible.

Vietnam's destruction of the Pol Pot regime, in fact, was an action which in the broad sense ended up being very much in favour of life and liveliness in that part of the World. Pol Pot's regime was about as opposed to life as any regime I've ever heard of.

I totally support Vietnam's pre-emptive attack on the Khymer Rouge, and it's about the only example of its sort I can think of that I do support.

I am less inclined to look favourably on the other 2 scenarios you cited, although I understand the argument in both cases.

A French-Polish attack on Germany was not justified.

But...if the British and French had supported Czechoslovakia more strongly in '38...or even if the Czechs had decided alone to stand and fight...the German Army generals would have arrested Hitler and Goering and shut down the Nazis, and that would have been the end of it. No war necessary at all in that case. It's recorded. It's a fact. And it's a great shame it didn't happen.

The Czechs had 88mm guns and excellent border defenses that would very likely have turned a German assault into a disaster, and the German military staff knew it. They were absolutely ready to overthrow the government at a moments notice if the order to attack was given. Hitler got lucky, very lucky, because the French, the British, and the Czechs lost their nerve. Too bad for Germany and Europe!

I do not support Israel's attack on the reactor.

So I guess Vietnam's strike on Cambodia remains the one and only pre-emptive strike in modern times that I do support wholeheartedly.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: GUEST,devilsadvocate
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 08:39 PM

Im aware of Czech history, being one myself, the fact is not so much they lost their nerve but they were sold out by both their so-called allies the French and British who were trying to get peace with honour and got neither (to quote Churchill)

I doubt the Germans would have been repulsed that easily, despite the border fortifications - but it probably would have slowed them down.

the overthrow of Bokassa, Idi Amin etc are other examples of justifiable military interventions - simply for humanitarian reasons.

I wonder how many others supported Saddams right to nuclear weapons.
certainly gulf war II and III would have been different.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 10:47 PM

I have been told by one who studies war that the bulk of the German weapons which made blitzkrieg effective were either taken from Czech armories or developed from those same weapons.

On the original thread, while "constructive" and "destructive" are generally useful labels, there are many activities which fall into one category on a societal level and another on an individual level. Similarly, the long-term effects of any action may differ greatly from the short-term. This makes it much trickier to analyze the "rightness" of any action, even if we could agree on the extent of the area in which "constructive" and "destructive" should be measured.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 03 - 05:48 PM

I suspect most people who were aware of it, around the world , and even in the USA, felt sympathetic towards Vietnam in this action. However this didn't register with the US Government. In fact, as I understand it, the Vietnamese invasion against Pol Pot was used by the USA as grounds for continuing to impose sanctions against Vietnam for years.

Still, that's thread drift. It'd be better in a thread of its own maybe?

Little Hawk says "Smashing up property is harmful. Building a house or a piece of furniture is helpful." Surely that depends on the property, and on where the house is built and stuff like that? There is property that is better off destroyed, and buildings that should never be put up. And, of course, building a house might well involve smashing up the property of the people who lived there before the house builders came along.

No one has mentioned Kant's categorical imperative, which seems a pretty good basis for deciding what is right and what is wrong: "Act according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should be a universal law."

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Oct 03 - 06:48 PM

Yep. Like I said, reality will generally provide various exceptions to any verbal or written rule of rightful conduct. That's why we need wise and compassionate people to come up with original solutions to unique situations more than we need another set of rules.

My father is Czech too, devilsadvocate, interestingly enough. He would agree with you that the British and French failed Czechoslovakia, but he also feels that the Czech leader (Benes?) did indeed lose his nerve at the critical moment.

My point was that the German attack would never have occurred at all, had the Czechs been resolved to fight, because the Wehrmacht was not well enough equipped yet in '38, and the German generals knew it, and they were prepared to arrest Hitler, Goering, Goebbels, and the whole nasty lot and declare martial law in Germany if the order to attack was given. In the event, the order didn't have to be given, because Benes knuckled under. It was actually the last real chance for peace. By '39 the Wehrmacht WAS strong enough to wage real war. They had also acquired several hundred excellent tanks and the matchless 88 mm Flak guns from Czechoslovakia, and went on to win big in '39 and '40 and '41 using those very weapons along with their own excellent Panzer III and Panzer IV tanks...and the Luftwaffe, the World's foremost airforce at that time.

I think you're probably quite right about Idi Amin and Mr Bokassa, but I'm not well enough informed on those wars to really have a solid opinion.

McGrath - Okay, let me rephrase it: Smashing up property that is valuable and useful to its rightful owners and harmless to everyone and everything else is a destructive act. Building such property is constructive.

See how tricky and limited words are? I'm sure someone can come up with an exception even to that, but they can hardly pretend they don't know what I mean by the statement.

I am reminded of those old puzzles, like: You're driving down a narrow mountain road. You come around a hairpin turn. There's a child on the road. There's a truck out of control coming right at you the other way. There's a cliff. Do you - turn right and go off the cliff to save the child? Do you - go left and pile headon into the truck or the rock wall? Do you hit the brakes, slide into the child and probably the truck too and kill everybody? Etc..etc...etc...

The only useful way to respond to that sort of manipulative crap is say to the questioner, "Do you really enjoy dreaming up imaginary BS like this to cause other people mental distress? If so, maybe you should seek counseling..."

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 03 - 07:03 PM

Do you hit the brakes, slide into the child and probably the truck too and kill everybody?

That's the most likely thing to happen. That kind of question masquerades as a question about morality, but it isn't, it's about psychology. In practice , in that situation you'd be acting on instinct, modified by the way you've been behaving all your life. (If the question was "Sitting in an archchair, what do you think would be the best outcome" it'd be completely different - and pretty irrelevant.)

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Oct 03 - 07:16 PM

Exactly. It's an attempt on the part of the questioner to mindfuck the other person (mainly for the amusement of the questioner).

Nobody really knows what they'll do in such situations until those situations actually happen, and then they respond, as you say, instinctively.

I really don't like it much when people talk about stuff like this just in order to demonstrate their mental cleverness and "win" the discussion, rather than because they actually believe in something meaningful. Who cares if they "win"? What difference could it possibly make to anything real? Will anyone care next year?

We all know perfectly well what right and wrong are in our hearts. It's dead simple most of the time. That's why young children have such a keen sense of injustice. They haven't become sophisticated enough yet to indulge in the sort of intellectual dishonesty that older people routinely do in order to sound clever and win arguments.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 17 Nov 03 - 02:53 PM

ACTION

We would often be ashamed of our best actions
if the world knew the motives behind them.

       Francois De La Rochefoucauld

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Nov 03 - 03:30 PM

You're driving down a narrow mountain road. You come around a hairpin turn. There's a child on the road. There's a truck out of control coming right at you the other way. Little Hawk, are both you and the truck going downhill, even though you are meeting head on?

As for humankind, if it should happen that we are the ants in an antfarm, carried/cared for by some humongous being whose existence we are barely able to postulate (think of a gnat or midge, perhaps, versus human beings), what then?

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 02:31 PM

Little Hawk: "I am reminded of those old puzzles, like: You're driving down a narrow mountain road. You come around a hairpin turn. There's a child on the road. There's a truck out of control coming right at you the other way. There's a cliff. Do you - turn right and go off the cliff to save the child? Do you - go left and pile headon into the truck or the rock wall? Do you hit the brakes, slide into the child and probably the truck too and kill everybody? Etc..etc...etc..."
It's a no-win situation, like the Kobyashi Maru, Better ask your mate James T how to handle it

Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:31 PM

OK, I had an ethical question, and this seems the best place to pose it rather than starting another thread: What are the ethics of cat adoption of found animals? A local stray (no collar, no visible attachment to any particular place) has started hanging around our house, and the twins have started feeding her, and she is very sweet and apparently fairly old, very well-behaved, very friendly... do I *have* to put out flyers saying Found lost cat? Or can I just keep her...? (Of course I will be taking her to the vet and all but what about the basic ethical question of do I have to publicize her being found, given that she had no collar?) Thanks!

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:49 PM

Yes advertise. Her collar may have come off, they can do. She may be 'chipped' with her owners details,you should know after the visit to the vet.

There may be some white haired old lady, softly crying into her cocoa at the loss of Flossie.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 07:02 PM

It's possible. You don't have to. What you HAVE to is what you decide to do! :-)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 07:03 PM

it's polite & reasonable to at least put up some flyers on poles in the neighborhood...someone may know where it came from.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 07:20 PM

But then I'd have to give her back! Right?

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 07:42 PM

Yup that's the down side. But the white haired old lady and leaves all her zillions to you in her will.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: dianavan
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 07:46 PM

Mrrzy - Sounds like my cat. She's so easy that she'll follow you home if you pet her. Feed her and she thinks you belong to her.

If you stop feeding her, she may wander back home. Now that you have started feeding her, I think you are obligated to post some signs saying you've found her.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: mack/misophist
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 12:18 AM

At least call the pound and/or SPCA to see if any one is looking for her. If nothing else, they would have a bigger emotional investment than you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 12:37 AM

Legally I reckon you could keep the cat.
morally i reckon you should ask around your street and maybe the next street, to see if anyone has lost their pet.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 01:26 AM

Abortion-Right or wrong? WRONG FOR ME - RIGHT FOR SOMEONE ELSE (THEIR CHOICE - THEY HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE DECISION)

Capital Punisment - WRONG - BECAUSE THERE ARE WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

Eauthanasia - PERSONAL DECISION (IF I WERE IN PAIN, I WOULD WANT THE OPTION)

Experiments on Animals - WRONG

War - WRONG

d

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 01:42 AM

dianavan-i agree with all except the experiments on animals,
i am in favour of vivisection for medical research, though NOT for cosmetics and shampoo etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 02:35 AM

OK - I was struggling with that question.

Animals for medical research - yes

Cosmetics and shampoos - no

d

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: mack/misophist
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 09:11 AM

Another disagreement. Was the war against Hitler wrong? I don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 01:21 PM

The way I heerd it, all human cultures forbid murder, theft and incest. (Anything else is a political crime.) That's as basic as you can get.

And it sounds reasonable, except they don't all define murder, theft and incest the same, & it's the definitions that have the devil in them, and the definitions that fill up most of the arguments.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: mack/misophist
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 11:19 PM

Incest wasn't forbidden in all cases. On occasion it was mandatory. ie. Pharoahs in Egypt.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Bert
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 11:51 PM

Abortion-Right or wrong?
a tragedy, but sometimes necessary and very rarely my decision.

Capital Punisment " "
Wrong because justice is so often flawed. If I could always be 100% certain then I know that there are people in this world that we don't need.

Eauthanasia       " "
Wrong because even informed consent can be cooerced. But if someone I loved was asking for release then I'd do it regardless of the consequenses.

Experiments on Animals " "
Difficult because we eat animals and that certainly doesn't do them much good. However most of us are opposed to obvious cruelty.

War "   "
Offensive No, Defensive Yes. But once you get started it becomes difficult to tell the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 02:34 AM

98

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 06:16 AM

Mrrzzy, I wouldn't go much by the lack of a collar but perhaps that is another of those us vs uk differences with keeping cats. None of our cats have ever worn collars (except sometimes flea collars) and I rarely see a cat with a collar.

We try to go by the circumstaces. In your case, it seems almost certain that the cat had a good owner at least until recently. I would try to reunite cat with owner.

If you do what I think you should do and you found yourself having to give the cat back, it's not the end of the world. I don't know/can't remember what I've been told about the situation in the us but I feel sure there must be animal shelters and cats crying out for good homes.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 06:18 AM

8-{E

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 03:20 PM

"Incest wasn't forbidden in all cases. On occasion it was mandatory. ie. Pharoahs in Egypt."

It was mandatory for the pharaohs for reasons of politics & power, as I understand it. Egypt then was a union of tribes, some with patrilineal & some with matrilineal descent, and to keep the pharaohship in the family siblings had to marry each other, But the common people had to marry outsiders.

Politics trumps ethics again.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: mack/misophist
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 11:56 PM

The reason was political and legal. The right to the throne was passed through the female, not the male. Sort of like Mosaic Law where the mother determines Jewishness not the father. I'm told that's because you always know who the mother is....

Egypt also had the example of it's gods. ie Isis and Osiris.