Re: Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George Bush Drinking?


"Charlie Self" <charliediy@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1128882399.603270.302170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Mike Marlow wrote:
> > "Larry Blanchard" <lblanch@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:434951dc$0$49011$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > George wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Trouble is, without divine endorsement, what's "right" and ethical
for
> > one
> > > > is not necessarily "right" or ethical for another. People who
talk
> > about
> > > > "human rights" are no different from those who preach their
morality
> > > > derived from their deities of choice.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Wrong. We are subject to the same basic ethical rule as everthing
else.
> > > If it's good for the survival of the species, it's "right." If it's
> > > bad for the survival of the species, it's "wrong."
> > >
> > > Of course it's not that simple. There's long-term vs short-term
> > > survival, the importance attached to a stasble society, etc.. But the
> > > basic rule is there.
> >
> > That rule doesn't stand up to widely varying cultural values for even a
> > second. Gonna need to come up with a different rule.
> >
>
> In what way doesn't it stand up? You make a flat statement without even
> a smidgin of proof or a single example.
>

It's an easy statement to make Charlie. Not all cultures value the same
things. There is no consistent definition of what is good for the survival
of the species. The values across cultures can be extremely different.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@xxxxxxxxxx


.