somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:47C### [at] hotmailcom...
>> somebody wrote:
>>> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:48:03 -0700, somebody wrote:
>>>>> I don't care. A thousand years is as meaningless to me as 100 billion
>>>>> years.
>>>> You don't think we owe it to future generations to leave them a
> habitable
>>>> planet?
>>> No. I never signed a contractual agreement with future generations one
> way
>>> or the other. But more importantly, I won't exist after I die, much as I
> did
>>> not before I was born. It's superstitious to contemplate outside of
> one's
>>> existence. Future guilt is the modern day equivalent of original sin -
> both
>>> are religious nonsense.
> 
>> I think that is going to get you in serious trouble if you want to
>> behave ethically. For ethics a longterm view is necessary. Either by
>> believing in something that transcends your life in the form of a god or
>> e.g. an obligation to add to the survival and happiness of humanity.
> 
> I don't care about humanity without me. It's an extremely absurd notion, if
> you think about it.
> 
>> The
>> way you put it any ethical consideration is external. As in: "I don't
>> steal or murder because I might get in jail for that". Implying also
>> that it is OK if you don't get caught. So, would you rob someone if you
>> know for sure that you won't get caught? If not, I would be interested
>> in the fundamental reason why you wouldn't.
> 
> First, how would I know *for sure*? Second, a perfect crime requires much
> effort. There are probably legitimate (ie less risky, less complicated) ways
> to make money. Finally, speaking of legitimate ways to make money, have you
> not ever charged for, let's say a contract work you did for somebody,
no
> or a
> good or second hand product that you sold to somebody more than what you
> would think is fair? 
no, besides I tend to give things away.
> How is that different from robbery? Do you go to your
> local police headquarters and pay a fine each time you drive over the speed
> limit whether you get caught or not? 
I did everytime I did it deliberately.
> We all take what we can get away with,
> and mostly, it's habitual, following the path of least resistance. 
No, definitely no.
> If I were
> brought up and lived in a society where people voluntarily paid fines for
> infringements they committed, I would probably do that too. If I lived in a
> society where stealing was the norm, I too would steal. Right now, deviating
> from the norm takes extra thought and effort.
> 
> Ethics is way overrated. Nobody would act ethically (not the least because
> there's no such thing as universal ethics) if it weren't enforced. 
If you think so, you have met only the wrong people. I know a lot of 
people that act ethically because they want to behave like that. I also 
know that us atheists and the christians, muslims, taoists, buddhists, 
etc. have slighly different ethics, but that does not mean that we don't 
agree on most things.
> Being caught (whether by the fellow humans or the invisible all-seer 
 > in the sky) is the only reason we act *ethically*.
If you want to put it that way, you should add 'being caught by 
oneself'. And even then, you miss an important aspect. Fear of getting 
caught is only a phase of it, later it becomes second nature. For me it 
is out of the question to rob someone of even deliberately drive too 
fast, I am simply incapable of doing so. I even feel stressed and 
slightly physical unwell if my wife drives too fast or parks at a 
prohibited spot. That said, I know that I live in a country where I can 
afford to live this way.
> Of course getting caught death is
> highly irrational, but nobody said humans were rational to begin with.
> 
>

Post a reply to this message