Saturday, December 29, 2007

Chuck Norris Approved


Thoughtful in Selah said...

That is the funniest thing I've ever seen! I'm sure that'll gain Huckabee some votes.

Billy said...

I must admit... I got this from SUPER-K

Blood Soaked Roses said...


Ranting Heathen said...

Hello there, Mr. Billy

This is actually a very common question, and a large misconception.

There are certain objective values that may be settled upon, from a specific point of view. For instance, nonviolence and kindness may be generally promoted, from self-interest: If you go around killing people, they are more likely to kill you. Self-preservation will usually prevent you from taking actions that get you killed.

Kindness is less critical, but still helpful: People are more likely to reciprocate kindness towards those who show it to them than they are to someone who is cruel to them.

Other values, over less obvious issues of potential right-and-wrong, may be debated to help determine them, but some of them are based on the individual's sense of morality. No matter what, what's right in the eyes of some will be wrong in the eyes of others; a religious society doesn't change that.

The only real difference with the debate on what is right and wrong settles on their interpretation of holy texts, many of which can be used to defend a wide range of things.

Majority rule would tend to be emphasized in right and wrong in and Atheistic society, as it would in a religious society. That is always something that changes with the times and majority, regardless of religion. A good example would be slavery: Many of the religious in America, particularly those of a more Fundamentalist Christian leaning, thought slavery to be a perfectly moral and just institution, and fought for keeping it. By modern standards, slavery is considered immoral, regardless of what religion you subscribe to.

Much of deciding right and wrong can be left to your conscience, which develops depending on the society you're a part of. Most systems of morality I've seen have been based around "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or a similar adage. Strength isn't always important: As an example, World War 2 Germany was one of the most powerful nations in the world, and individually could have conquered probably any of the combatants. But because they had run afoul of many others, that didn't help, because they had not only ne army to contend with, but many.

Billy said...

If you’re wondering... [Ranting Heathen] is eloquently responding to a comment I left on his blog. Here is the address if you are interested:

Ranting Heathen said...

My response is Eloquent? D'aww. You flatter me.