alt.education

"Joe Irvin" wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message
>news:s6dgr35qaiqgivvi0grpd16eu6q02shftk@4ax.com...
>> Thinking further on your post and my response, I summarize my points
>> as being
>> 1) what you call "conscience" is simply our experience-affected
>> instincts (those with someone different experiences will have somewhat
>> different instincts)
>
>There is a difference in conscience and instinct.

Not that I can tell.

>> 2) what most people call "morality" is simply their attempt to
>> rationalize their conscience (their experience-affected instincts) to
>> allow them to think about situations that are not immediately
>> impinging upon them. One major way to rationalize is to define rules
>> that happen to agree with those of others who you respect and admire.
>> This suits the conscience, which tells us that getting along with
>> others, especially those with clout, is good for survival and
>> prosperity (and those we respect and admire usually have clout - they
>> cause others to respect and admire them)
>
>Ones conscience doesn't let one rationalize

It can't stop us.

>... it tells you, you did was wrong.

You must have a most single-minded conscience, or you must do some
really bad stuff. I seldom go beyind "iffy" behaviors.

>Ones conscience is quiet when one does right.

Mine isn't. I could always be doing better, and yet I could always be
doing worse.

>> 3) religious people tend therefore to choose a "morality" based on
>> what their religious teachers (who tend to have a lot of clout with
>> those they socialize with) tell them
>
>The Christian religions allows one to read the Bible to check the religious
>teacher .

Actually, that is only Protestant religion.

And it doesn't matter. The Bible is just substituting for the
"religious teacher" with the added problem of subjective reading
comprehension.

>... it asks the reader to check the teacher/teaching.

The reader isn't capable of doing so.

>The Christian religions calls one to also socialize with people that are not
>like us ... poor and the unsaved ... just letting them hear the word with no
>force involved.

Some Christian religions do. Others do not. In most cases they
aren't interested in hearing the word, and the typical evangelical
Christian is more likely to drive someone away than otherwise, by his
attempts to "just let them hear the word".

But that isn't relevant to the topic, in any case.

>> 4) moralities tend to have some basic things in common, because the
>> instincts that underlie them are basically the same - things that lead
>> to safety and security and getting along with others.
>
>Mr LeChevalier, I think you are a Christian.

Yes.

>Do you think Jesus was looking for safety and security?

Jesus, if He really was God, was guaranteed it. Omnipotence is a
pretty good basis for security. Nothing happened to Him that He did
not want or plan to happen.

And because He was God, absolutely nothing about Him can be compared
with what a normal person experiences. Put God in a human body, and
He is still God, not human.

>Don't you think he rocked the boat?

Why is that relevant? We're talking about human morality.


So?

>and Rome.

Actually not. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's".

>> 6) what you call good/evil is simply one form of rationalizing.
>
>Good and evil are reality.

Only to those that believe in it, which means that they are
subjective.

>I'm not rationalizing when I call Hitler evil.

Hitler didn't call himself evil. Nor did several million followers.

>Do you think one rationalizes when they call Hitler evil?

Yes. Even though I call him evil too.

lojbab