Laurie wrote:

> Ethics are idiosyncratic, they are just made up by the individual (or
> local group) to suit personal ego issues of the moment. That is, there is
> no -objective- set of ethics against which to compare one's own
> ethics-of-the-moment. With no objective standard, one set of ethics is as
> valid/invalid as any other.

Hi, Laurie,

Does that mean that you reject all ethical standards and conduct? I would
much rather live in a world where people acted according to ethical
standards and principles than in a world where everyone was an unprincipled
scoundrel. You can usually trust someone with a highly developed ethical
code, for instance, more than one who is utterly devoid of all ethical
values. The latter are sometimes called sociopaths. While it is true that
not everyone's ethical standards are in total agreement, there is often a
general agreement between the ethical systems common in most cultures.
That, in itself, should point to the validity of ethics, whether the
ultimate source of all ethics is theology, biochemistry, neurophysiology,
physics or whatever.

Boy, how this thread has taken many unexpected and convoluted turns since my
first posting about three weeks ago.


--
Andy Rugg - The Cheerful Pickle
To email me, please remove "postheap" from my email address. Thanks.