Public SourceMage Discussion List

[George Sherwood <pilot AT beernabeer.com>]

On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 23:28 -0600, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:

> > ethics != religion.  Why dismiss an ethical discussion that has impact 
> > upon all our lives as a religious discussion?  Religious discussions 
> > deal with the unfalsifiable and unscientific.  Most ethical discussions, 
> > particularly those in a non-religious context that deals with actual 
> > ramifications of actions, can be dealt with on game theoretic terms 
> > coherently in a modern sociobiological framework without any appeal to 
> > religious authority, which you seem to dislike.
> 
> "Religion" when used in this type of context usually is taken to mean that
> the topic at hand has been debated to death other places, and most of what
> can profitably be said has been said.  This rarely says anything about the
> actual merit or matter of the point(s) being raised.  In other words, I'm
> not going to argue license morality here because I have nothing to add to
> that topic that hasn't already been said elsewhere.  We can repeat the same
> old arguments here for a few weeks or we can just say we know the arguments
> and have reached our conclusions and this is where we each stand.

I would add that more then "religion" being used in this context like
emrys discussed, it is also used when trying to push a "belief system"
onto some one else.  Your view of a ethical "sociobiological framework"
may not be the same as mine.  I don't want yours pushed on me any more
then I want to have a person's religious beliefs pushed on me.  As
example,what you believe is ethical in a marriage may not agree with
mine and this can have nothing at all to do with religion.  It can be
part of your titled "sociobiological framework".  It makes neither of us
wrong, but IMO it is wrong to try to force once belief system on another
person.  I see this discussion in the same framework.

George

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part