Anonymous #278 (Unregistered)
05/06/08 04:21 PM
 
 |
| Views: 134 |
|
|
Argument:
1. The existence of any moral law beyond advancement of self-interests presupposes a divine arbiter of moral law (God) 2. There does exist a universal moral law (act in the interests of those you come in contact with) 3. The concept of a divine arbiter of moral law is silly 4. The universe is a single self (oversoul) of which our "egos" are among the constituent parts.
Thus: By acting in the interests of others we are actually furthering our self-interests in the only true and objective idea of the "self", because we are all one. And: There is no God
Ya dig?
|
arghFace (FUBAR King)
05/06/08 10:09 PM
 
 |
| Views: 119 |
|
|
|
|
kiauma (Resonator)
05/07/08 08:16 AM
 
 |
| Views: 107 |
|
|
God has nothing to do with it. Or everything. Depends on how you look at it.
Regardless of it's source, there is an innate morality of simply seeking to manifest one's highest expression.
The rest is deducible from that single principle.
The answer is always Awareness - only the context changes.
|
Anonymous #506 (Unregistered)
05/07/08 11:56 AM
 
 |
| Views: 101 |
|
|
In reply to kiauma: God has nothing to do with it. Or everything. Depends on how you look at it.
Regardless of it's source, there is an innate morality of simply seeking to manifest one's highest expression.
The rest is deducible from that single principle.
The answer is always Awareness - only the context changes. Well yes that must be true, but I've been struggling with exactly how to deduce it. It becomes enormously difficult to find the motivation, that "oomph" to actually act morally in the absence of some transcendental backing or reason for the moral imperatives, or without some assurance that doing so will increase one's one happiness proportionally. Of course its not impossible, but for your average person to aspire to perfect morality and sustain it for a lifetime there must be some tangible reason to do so.
|
arghFace (FUBAR King)
05/07/08 07:29 PM
 
 |
| Views: 88 |
|
|
so , when the others' interests are to poison the earth..?..
|
Anonymous #277 (Unregistered)
05/08/08 11:53 AM
 
 |
| Views: 79 |
|
|
Well of course a distinction must be made between what people think their interests are and what they really are. I'd say those people are merely suffering from the delusion that there's any objective difference between "themselves" and "the earth", rather than seeing the universe entire as a single organism.
|
arghFace (FUBAR King)
05/08/08 03:37 PM
 
 |
| Views: 77 |
|
|
good call, sans the perceived knowledge of what's going on in the point-of-view of any being other than one's own
the interest of harmony, synch, health, full expression, ecstacy, realization, optimal experience and in the average person, i guess, "contentment and peace of mind"
|
kiauma (Resonator)
05/13/08 09:24 AM
 
 |
| Views: 60 |
|
|
It's a bit of a catch-22, as Fullest expression = maximization of powers = deepest appreciation. Unfortunately, the narrower one's consciousness becomes, the more difficult it becomes to 'see' the sense of this.
Maslow wrote a slim volume towards this decades ago. The book is a good read and fairly short, if a bit dry. You might find appendix H particularly relevant. You can read the entire book online here.
The answer is always Awareness - only the context changes.
|
OctopusDancer (Brujo Vallesano)
05/14/08 04:12 PM
 
 |
| Views: 39 |
|
|
Donno bout moral arbiters. I do know about high level dragons. Y'dont fuck with 'em. They ARE the law.
|
arghFace (theJunkDNA)
05/14/08 06:30 PM
 
 |
| Views: 37 |
|
|
Dragons with their soft spot where the scales part, awaiting your pike, spear, arrow, or even swordthrust
This thread btw is pleading for me to throw this article here
Rapid advances in the field of biology have prompted lawmakers to consider creating guidelines to regulate experiments involving animal-human hybrids. As politicians debate the ethical and moral issues, scientists continue to explore uncharted territory, with each step forward prompting the question: how far is too far?
Animal-human hybrids were once purely the stuff of science fiction, however fiction has become reality. Scientists have created sheep that possess human hearts and livers, pigs that have been born with human blood, and a variety of other creatures whose genetic makeup has been tampered with. Biologists call these hybrid animals chimeras. They are named after a mythical Greek creature that was said to possess a lion's head, a goat's body, and a serpent's tail.
In recent years cross-species experimentation has become more widespread. Scientists at Newcastle University recently created Britain's first ever human-animal hybrid embryos. Researchers inserted human DNA from a skin cell into cow eggs from which the genetic information had been removed. The human-cow hybrid embryos will be used for stem cell research.
The Yuck Factor
The frightening reality is that there are not currently any federal guidelines to regulate chimeric experiments. Researchers have been left alone to regulate themselves, but there seems to be no consensus within the scientific community over what is and is not considered ethical.
Moral objections to chimeric research are often dismissed by proponents as simply knee-jerk reactions based on instinctual, rather than logical, thinking. These misgivings are sometime referred to by scientists as the "yuck factor." Unfortunately, many researchers describe the "yuck factor" as though it were an obstacle to scientific discovery, instead of evidence of a troubled conscience.
Exploring these new frontiers of science and medicine without the guidance of a strong moral compass will lead us into an ethical quagmire with dangerous repercussions. Without some kind of clear guidelines, we risk adopting a form of logic that would leave us tempted, not only to ponder, but also to do the unthinkable.
We are embarking upon an enterprise unlike anything undertaken before. The avalanche of advances in the current biotech revolution is both exciting and frightening. The promise of new remedies and cures in many diverse fields of medicine has given new hope to those who suffer from diseases like diabetes and Parkinson's. Meanwhile science continues to outrun lawmakers. The biotech revolution has produced a host of ethical questions that have yet to be answered. These questions strike at the very heart of what it means to be human. To learn more about this topic, click on the links below.
Related Links:
• First British Human-Animal Hybrid Embryos Created - Guardian
• Bill to Ban Human-Animal Hybrids Introduced in Congress - Life Site
• Genetically Modified Human Embryo Stirs Criticism - AP
BioTech: The Sorcerer's New Apprentice? - MP3 Download
|
Kiauma #521 (Unregistered)
05/17/08 06:53 AM
 
 |
| Views: 19 |
|
|
Excellent article Argh - and some weighty questions.
My own view is that this will inevitably force us to see that our own genes are not sacrosanct. With the ability to juggle them at will, or use them at our whim in combination with others, it will eventually force us to face our own place in the cosmic order, and what our existence really means. Further, it will distance us from the idea that what we do is separate from evolution as a whole.
Hopefully, the idea that awareness is the basis of intelligence, not the molecule, will begin to gain some traction.
|
kiauma (Resonator)
05/17/08 12:48 PM
 
 |
| Views: 16 |
|
|
Yeah, that's me, my computer just didn't log in for some reason.
The answer is always Awareness - only the context changes.
|