Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee
You couldn't detect the sarcasm so I fixed it for you.
|
Thank you, but I did notice it was satire. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from your satire I drew 2 theses.
1. "Churches" teach a doctrine of do whatever the heck you want, and are therefore disreputable ethical institutions.
2. The laws which govern the animal kingdom are insufficient for humans because we are something special or different from "mere animals".
In thesis 1, I point out that practically no organized religion condones "anything goes" behavior.
In thesis 2, you seem to be alluding to an alternate source for a moral compass, but stop short of defining it. My inelegant response was intended to illicit that source from you, but more than that to have other readers ponder that question for a moment; what is a reasonable moral compass?
I lumped religion and politics into the same category because I see no practical distinction between them. They both define a code of conduct, reward for adhering to it, and punishment for breaching it. The foundational principles of US law are even rooted in Christianity!
We are clearly incapable of being our own moral compass since we tend to agree that anarchy is to be avoided. You have ruled out "churches" and I have so closely related religion and politics that you cannot throw one out without applying the same reasoning to the other.
The question remains; what is the valid moral compass that empowers one to point the finger at another, and with certainty declare "you are clearly the douche"?
This is going quite off topic, but I find the "why" question of ecomodding even more interesting than the "how".