and the R's lost how?
 

I am enough of a small-c conservative to be happy that the filibuster survives in some form. And I think that the big victory for Democrats is that some threat of a filibuster of a Bush Supreme Court nominee continues. This will temper that nomination, and should dissuade Bush from picking a total wingnut. Also, between Voinovich's position on the Bolton nomination, and the deal on the filibusters, you see moderate Republicans bucking the President and not (yet?) paying a price. The battle here is between the President and moderate Republicans, not between the GOP and Dems.

That said, I think that some of the judges who are going to take the bench are terrible, and I regret seeing them going up. Owen was just ranked as the worst judge on the Texas Supreme Court according to the bar association ratings in that notoriously liberal hotbed, Houston. By her own speeches, Brown wants to be the worst kind of judicial activist. But you can't win them all, and Bush has been happy to turn over the selection of judges to cultural conservatives.

and the R's lost how?
 

Who knew I had this much influence here?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I have heard this claim before, in fact I have read whole books based on this claim, but they never really back it up. Absense a higher law where do morals and ethics come from?

I have never heard of how everyone looking out for their own self interest leads to a moral and ethical society?

In the end, how does ones self interest lead to the conclusion one should be concerned about starving children in Bangaladesh?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

OK - but is the source of your personal ethics and morality come from this creator or from yourself?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Evolution. Survival of the species. Tempered by personal experiences and drug-induced changes to brain structure.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Do you think that helping starving children in Bangladesh is the right thing to do only because an omnipotent being says so? Or do you think there is some essential moral quality to helping others?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I don't understand what that means. Absence some sort of higher law or code the word moral has no meaning. What is your definition of morality?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Why does a general code of human behavior have to come from a higher source?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Ty looks at what America has done and starts with the assumption that was morally wrong.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Because I don't know of any other source. Do you? From just using rationality and reason can you come up with a moral code? Or a code that is not based purely on self interest?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Why couldn't the latter be a basis? While one can asail both the logic and the conclusions, haven't both Mill and Rawls (as well as others) done this, essentially?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I think the rules that people seem to agree on universally(generally don't kill, or at least not indiscriminately; help at least some of the younger weak live) have evolved as survival mechanisms.

I don't think there are a ton of "rules" that people generally agree on. They seem to quibble about the details. Can you think of other examples?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Whoa. For a RINO, spanky, you're getting all Dobson on us today.


Stop it, and go get a philosophy book. This stuff makes baby Aristotle cry.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

2. New question: Say you could start up a whole new tax structure how would balance the burdens between wealthly/poor/inheritance/gains/whatever. Clean slate! Let's go!

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Yes people have come up with moral systems based on self interest. And generally people agree that morality helps people survive. If in a society there are rules against killing and stealing etc. then the society will be stronger because there will not be internal conflict. But as far as morality is concerned you run into what I like to call the Nietchza problem. If one can see that the morality is there purely to help the society to survive, the smart rational player would want to live in a moral society, but not be moral themselves but make the rest of society think they are moral (become a superman beyond burgeous morality). You want to live in a moral society because then your neighbords won't steal your stuff or kill you. However, if you live in such a society, if you can get away with it, you should steal your neighbors stuff because that will benefit you. As long as your neighbors don't know that you are doing it, then you should do it. If you can cheat on your taxes and get away with it you should because it is in your self interest. In a moral code that is purely based on self interest and practicality how can argue that someone should not steal from their neighbor if they can get away with it?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Like Einstine said, it's all relative.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

How does deriving that code from a god change anything you've said? If god says "be good" there's still an incentive for someone to cheat. Maybe they don't care about going to hell. Or maybe hell doesn't exist.

If what you're saying is there are no adequate non-eternal enforcement mechanisms, then you're arguing an entirely different proposition.

I just don't see what religion necessarily adds, except for a false definiteness that can't be countered by logic. It's like the abortion debate: "the law should be this way because I believe it should be."

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I think it is hardwired into us to a degree, not to do the things that are bad for society as a whole. And the ability to comprehend (or inability to completely ignore/forget) the whole kinda Kantian* "if everyone did it, my life would suck, so I shouldn't do it" thing is also hardwired in, to a degree. Why do pack animals cooperate?

*oooh, check it out, I put in a PHILOSOPHER name, I am soooo fucking cool

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

As far as I am concerend philosophy is the basis of politics. I find the disucssion interesting. If you don't want to read my posts, simply ignore them, or you could go to the fashion board and discuss American Idol and breast implants.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

We are talking about fucking now.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Pack animals have been bred to cooperate. Although the mule clearly has not been perfected yet.

I just never have had anyone (including any of the so called famous philosophers) explain to me why someone should follow the golden rule or other commonly accepted moral rules absent a higher power (or absent a universal moral code). What rational should you give someone to convince them to help starving people in bangaladesh? It is in your self interest? Any attempt at proving that is a tortured rationalization. The only other thing to do is tell them "it is the right thing to do". But absent a universal code of ethics the term "right thing to do" is a meaningless term.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

What the fuck are you talking about, you freak? I mean like wolves.

Possible explanation for starving kids in Bangladesh: See "help some of the weak young survive," above. Obviously, this would have evolved to meet a local need, but the impulse remains and applies, to varying degrees, to anything with big eyes that looks hungry.

I am starting to think you are some kind of troll sock. You can't be this dense. Or, you really are partially club, and today is club's turn.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Did morality and ethics exist before the Old Testament?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Yeah? Explain Brother Bear.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

You have bears tote your stuff around? This explains a lot.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

If by hardwired you mean culturally, than I agree with you. Otherwise, I take the view that morality is taught. I don't think human's instinctively know the difference between right and wrong, although I do believe that there is an objective standard for right and wrong.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

When I make partner, you're blackballed.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Ah, a man of faith, I see.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I think humans instinctively want, everything else being equal, to help other humans and even animals. I think it's reinforced and channeled by teaching/society/culture, but I think it is instinctive.

How is this politics?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I am more than happy to pull the $2 million (ish) in billings I control. No problem.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

From myself. I don't know why, but for some unexplained reason, doing awful things to people just doesn't make me feel good. Call me crazy.

Its evolutionary. Being a rational, sensible person, I understand that its better for all of us to try to get along. It benefits my survival to be tolerant of others. Religion, on the other hand, as its practiced by fundamentalists, eschews tolerance in favor of obedience. In that regard, its a great guidepost...

If you don't have enough goddamned innate common sense to know on your own that you should be decent to your fellow man.

Everything St. Francis or Jesus taught could be deduced from a common sense analysis of the world around you.

None of this "wisdom" you credit to a higher power came from a higher power. Its cobbled together fables which people used over centuries to provide a laundry list of dos and don'ts for people who wouldn't know how to act on their own. Religion is offensive because it assumes man is too stupid to behave on his own accord.

Oh, its fucking silliness. I'd like to believe there was a religion that had the answer. Its hardly comforting to deal with the fact that you probably aren't going anywhere when you die, but its just impossible for me to lie to myslef and buy into your kind's horseshit fantasies. If there's a God, I'll know when I'm dead, and [s]he'll probably treat me well based on my deeds. But I can't imagine God could give a rat's ass about whether I believe in any particular religion. You know its a farce. You just don't want to admit it because that makes morality seem all that more overwhelming. Thats the handle on all the super-religious - they think their zeal can overcome their doubts. But it never really works, does it?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Sure, because they want to go to heaven.

:D

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

If no one internalizes the moral code, it's not a very useful thing.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Avoid hell, you mean.

I think Sebby, who is close to animal status, proves my point. "doing awful things to people just doesn't make me feel good"

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

No problem. That's dilutive anyway.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

If you think Sebby ever proves a point, then you've lost the argument.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

It doesn't help our tribe to save young in other tribes. Just like your point about not killing being a rule to help survive, needs the * that our tribe needs to rob and kill from the other tribe. At least in Cave man days that was going on.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I don't think he proved his point. I think his statement inadvertently proved my point.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Humans that are taught to want this do. But I think human's are more or less a blank slate at birth. We need to be taught what is good and what is not. I know you will abhor this suggestion, but spend some time around children and I think you will see evidence of this.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

It's an instinct. Knowing that the child you have teh instinctive urge to protect is part of a tribe that wants to kill you will make you either ignore your urge to protect/nurture, or make you kidnap the child and work it into your own tribe.