From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

That line sums up my basic philosphy of life and underpins my moral code.

Since you're neither Muslim nor Christian (safe to assume, since you've got both groups wrong), you are in no position to categorically state what they believe and on what they base those beliefs.

And in your infinite wisdom you are capable of actually knowing what those are?

I agree with the majority that morals are completely subjective. There is an illusion because our base morals come from society so there will be common morals between a group of people giving an illusion that it is universal and there will be a few morals that won't show up (killing all your offspring for example) since the society that makes that practice moral will die out in a few decades, making it seem like a universal immoral. I believe we shouldn't look for "universal morals" but the morality that helps our society and the world the best in whatever goal we pursue.

If you live in a society that is very production based, then worker rights will not seem like a big issue but if you live in a society that is more socialistic, worker rights will become a big moral issue. One is not more "barbaric" or "advanced" than the other, but just pursuing different goals.

I personally try to do what is best for the greatest number of people or society in general and with personal decisions I'll weigh that against my own personal want/freedom and make a decision.

Whats the point of saying this anyways? Besides trying to be an asshole? In terms of morality, no one knows what is best for the other person and have to make assumptions.

I'm still master of the uneducated multi-quote post. :( Can someone please help?

"Mirror neurons" (aka empathy) are what allow us to "know" what someone else wants/needs. If you can't make an educated guess at what is going on in someone else's head, you're probably autistic or have some other such disorder.

Is it because DanaC's philosophy crosses the line from personal to active imposition of her beliefs on others?

That's true in your book and mine, but it's something to keep in mind that for someone who DOES believe in a higher order, there is no choice. Or at least no real choice.

But more importantly because he doesn't agree with her beliefs. Unless you are a staunch libertarian, you believe in enforcing your views on others to some extent. And even then if there is someone who believes that the proper society is one that's controlling, by having a completely laissez faire society that's enforcing your will upon him.

Just look at what Elspode said, everything we do changes the world around us, so staying apart from it isn't really an option.

Oh and for the record, Dana, fuck yeah!

as are chocolate morsels :yum:

...but hold the chocolate morels..a'kay....yuk :greenface

What if each individual were honorable enough to judge his own possessions and needs, and deposit or withdrawl fairly?

I agree that morals change, and the golden rule is a good guide.

Not only do I reject the premise that I am incapable of having knowledge of clubs of which I am not explicitly a member, I submit that you haven't provided a substantiation for that premise; IE, by what mechanism is this knowledge restricted from entering my brain, and, were I to declare "I am a _______" by what mechanism would the information then be allowed? Your casual "you are in no position" claim will not be accepted at face value.

Justify your statement:

I didn't say you're incapable of having knowledge; I said you're in 'no position' to categorically state what they believe, i.e. no position of authority or integrity to speak for either group. Your lack of authority is self-evident. Your lack of integrity is reflected in the fact that you haven't informed yourself about either religion to the point where you can provide a short, 'public' summary of either faith's beliefs accurately. Either that, or your words are simply meant as an insult to both groups.