This
thread outlines the assumptions of the other threads in the Good and Evil discussion.
Assumptions:
1. We have free will
2. Our actions have consequences
3. We are not simply responding to biological urges
For the discussion threads, I was thinking of a theoretical thread and a practical thread, because it seems that the biggest rift we've been having in the discussion to date is about possible consequences of practically applying the theoretical concepts were discussing. I'd like to try to keep those issues separate, and I address that at the end of this post.
With that in mind, I thought this assumptions thread might include the following discussions:
1. The assertion that this is a clockwork Universe
That is, that everything in the universe is simply chance interactions of physical laws. In this view, humanity is simply a blip on the radar of chance between Big Bang and Heat Death (or whatever your cosmological model may be) and thus there is no Right or Wrong, no Good or Evil, no nothing. We have no responsibility for our actions because they are essentially meaningless and, in that light, anything goes.
If you believe this, then any discussion of personal responsibility is moot, and so any arguments along those lines should remain in this thread.
2. The assertion that we are bound by our animal nature
That is that everything we THINK is free choice is simply a byproduct of various biological urges such as preservation of the species. Like assertion one, reduced to its final conclusion, this theory says that we have no responsibility, since we are simply acting as our nature tells us.
It seems to me that any iontroduction of our animal nature can ultimately have only one of two outcomes: either we succumb to it and have no responsibility (and thus Right and Wrong are simply matters of biology) or we overcome it. Therefore, any discussion of animal nature remains here.
That's my view on it, anyway. I think over time we may need to modify this post to add additional "assumption" topics, because given the highly intellectual and vocal nature of this group, I'm sure the conversation will veer again. But I'd really like to try to keep the other two threads on topic.
And what is on topic?
Well, in the theoretical thread, I'd like to address, without any practical social application, whether or not there really is an ultimate Right and Wrong. This is a discussion about whether there are actions that are inherently Wrong, so that they should never be accepted, even if by some chance they are or were culturally acceptable. By removing the discussions about mechanism and biology, we can focus on the specific concept of Rightness, and whether there is really a Platonic ideal. And by divorcing the issue from the practical aspects, it might allow us to better examine the actual topic. One of the big issues in the last thread was the fact that, if we have moral absolutes, we could use those as excuses to persecute others. I don't want that issue to cloud the discussion.
Meanwhile, in the practical thread, I thought we could cover the social aspects of morality. No matter how we come to a set of moral standards, what does that mean to our society and to others? How do we apply those standards in a Democracy, or in other governmental forms? How do we deal with countries that don't apply our standards? This can cover a wide range of topics, from civil rights to geopolitics.
Let's hear what you all think.
)? I already deleted my last one.
they are gonna delete mine any way. Like I have always said they have a boner for you and jump to delete mine 
