Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JHC
Late to discover this most interesting thread you'd think there was nothing left to add. Indeed, it should be a difficult task to convey a subtle difference between what I have to say and what IIIX and SMadsen or any others have said.
I'll give it a go because it is important.
Societal ethics are not the catalyst of change. I can not believe that a wish for change is the cause of change itself.
Change is the basis of societal ethics. Because change is inevitable, we require societal ethics.
It must be so. When things become static, they become non existent. It is all we know.
Every animal, every breeze, every thought in our minds is change.
The earth revolves around the sun and spins on its axis and the sun is itself a life to be someday completely still, trapped in it's history and nothing more. Every quark, and every universe moves and changes ... automatically.
You get up in the morning and there is no guarantee that your car will start, that you'll have a job by 5:00, or even that the sun will continue to shine. Only change is absolutely inevitable.
|
Because we function within the boundaries of TIME, change is inevitable.
Societal ethics are necessary because we're a life form that still has basic drives and urges to LIVE. You offer a lot of flowery language to impress maybe ? Fair enough then.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JHC
I easily imagine that if I could graph the ups and downs of the history of homosapiens by any given ethical standard, that it would closely resemble the graph of any random individual measured by the same standard. Sometimes change is positive relative to our perception and sometimes, it is negative.
Then perception is everything. What I can perceive is my lifetime, a little written history, a little foresight - and all, relative to me.
On Faith:
Faith is nothing more than the belief that your actions mean something. That you have some control over inevitable change.
It may be an eccentricity of humanity or simply a derivitive of survival instinct; I must know that not only do I have control over the direction of change but that I am doing the "right" thing.
|
Sounds to ME like you're arguing for relativism:
Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual.
http://www.carm.org/relativism/whatisrelativism.htm
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JHC
For the most part, I have been generous with my conservative contemporaries at USPO because I am not devoid of faith and we frequently share that characteristic.
|
Yes, we know. An arrogant faith in yourself. A faith that you KNOW with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that you're RIGHT. So you've "been generous" with us
You're faith has little or nothing to do with and cannot be compared in ANY way to religious faith of any kind. Maybe some will buy into the idea that you "share faith" with them. I won't be fooled.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JHC
But I must confess that I feel I have one up on them. Why? Because I know that change is inevitable. I do not know if I can change the speed. I think I can influence the direction...I'm one step ahead.
If I'm right about this, I may also be right about the direction I think we should head. I have faith that it is so. Never let it be said that this little non-believer is devoid of faith. Does this make sense outside my head?
|
Ahhhh, the arrogance is too aggressive to stay hidden isn't it ? You "feel that you have one up on them." Because you "know that change is inevitable." You're "one step ahead."
You DO admit that "if I'm right about this,"
You say though that you "have faith" that "it is so" that YOU know the correct "direction we should head." You're faith in yourself and your OWN opinions cannot be compared to peoples belief and faith in a creator or a God. You're attempt to join these two tells me that this doesn't make sense
anywhere but inside YOUR head.