Oh yea, and via the Wiki entry for Kohlberg's stages:

While Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he had difficulty finding participants who consistently used it. It appears that people rarely if ever reach stage six of Kohlberg's model.

The question then becomes what you do with people who fail to become "adults", in the tw model. Most people operate in that "law and order" stage. Their moral development is weaker than tw's. I wonder what the true moral relativist does about these sorts. If they steal your bike, it isn't right or wrong, good or evil; they just do it. Maybe we should walk in the bike thief's shoes for a while, appreciate their perspective. Maybe the bike thief has the right idea.

I guess this is why rule of law is so important. Law need to be predictable and rational so that it is operational for everyone. Like you mentioned a long time ago about the alcohol laws we used to avoid by crossing state lines, they undermined our belief in law due to their irrational nature.

I know. Which is exactly why I'm not going to go into an overly-long spiel detailing every point of my belief system with careful attention paid to every word lest it be misunderstood. I posted a simple, somewhat flippant, point- and I think most understood it. "I rest my case" refers to the assertion that you are not understanding that point, as evidenced by the "animals are evil" interpretation you gave. Sure, if you want to take it to ridiculous levels you might interpret my post as saying that lions, tigers and bears will comprise the Fourth Reich and that ko-ko was the anti-christ; but you would be blazing that mental trail all by yourself- I'm still back at camp wondering where the hell you're going.

Not to be callous, tw, but it's not worth my effort to insure that you understand what I mean. The complexities of human nature dictate that any in-depth discussion of a true definition of "evil" is going to be long and tedious, and that's far beyond the scope of my post. My point was simply that evil exists. Undertoad nailed it pretty well. He's actually kind of eerie sometimes- he knows too much... :3eye:

I find it both annoying and dangerous that many people still insist that the ten commandments need to be the basis for our laws (I don't see many people on this forum leaning that direction, but it's still a popular idea). I think we've evolved as a civilization to the point where we should be able to agree on a common set of non-religious morals and principles (note that this undercuts "evil dude" #1's power). I had no clue about Kohlberg's stages, I'll have to look that up, but it rings true.

I like to think of myself as having put some effort into understanding the world around me, but I'm still a simple guy. If someone steals my bike, I'm finding him and kicking his ass. :p

I have always thought that calling something or someone "Evil" was a cop-out.
There is no such thing, just a way to get out of empathy for those too lazy or mean to want to look at both sizes.

What is the source for your quote? What you are talking about is a command decision. I don't know which incident you are discussing, but the bottom line is that many, if not most, rules are there for a reason. Considering the danger involved in a fire, the commander was automatically taking a risk by not responding appropriately. By using reasoning, he or she may have reduced that risk, but there was always the risk that it was a real alarm. It is ok and even desirable for commanders to take risks, as long as they take the responsibility for any mistakes that arise. Soldiers and quasi-military origanization members usually understand that they will bear the burden for their commanders mistakes. That's why they are not civilians.

And sometimes the WMD's just aren't there and you have to hunt for excuses and scapegoats.

I've met a couple of people that have absolutely no socially redeeming qualities...none.
You can be sure they will do the bad thing in every situation.
Evil is the best heading/description for their catagory. :2cents:

The source for my quote is tw's post.

I've found that you can break these types of people into two subgroups. One is the religious fanatic who thinks that everyone has to live by the Bible no matter what, and the other truly believes that they are the best rules for producing good human beings. We need to limit the power of the first, but remember that you cant tell someone "We can trace your ideas back to a religion so you no longer have the right to vote according to your own values". There is a huge difference between someone forcing their religion on others and another who supports a candidate who mirrors their values, whatever they may be.

No, I wouldn't go that far. Religion will always be the linchpin of the majority's moral system. That's a big "should" I put in there. But, really, I don't want to be a indirect convert to someone else's religious beliefs just because they're the majority and can pass them into law. Check out Utah. Admittedly, if you don't like it there you can move, but if it happens on a national level it's going to be highly annoying at best, and it's not necessary. I guess I just have a very conservative viewpoint when it comes to the gov and morals (true conservative). I don't need the feds to help me find my way to heaven, and moreover, sin should not be illegal- this is not a theocracy. I recognize that that's only my opinion, but it's one I'm pretty militant about.

And where does that morality belong? Long after one has logically evaluated the situation, then one stands back, compares that conclusion to morality biases, and ask, "Does it make sense?"

If not, one puts morality back in a drawer and restarts the logical analysis to find the error. When done, morality is again brought out to be compared to that logical solution. Morality never belongs in a decision making process – in part because it is an emotional concept. Morality is simply a 'check function' so that you don't make wild and unacceptable mistakes.

If, as Bible thumpers do, one uses morality as logic, then such people are easily converted to the dark side - as Hitler did to make it obvious that Jews were so immoral. Scopes trial did same when evolution was declared as evil. They were only using emotional morality rather than logic to condemn the science. If we blindly followed morality in the bible, then charismatic podium thumpers rather than fundamental science would be the source of man's advancement. Such moral people even created the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades.

The ten commandments were man's first attempts at forming civilization. We also no longer blindly follow old English law even though such laws are a fundamental basis of our own laws. As we advance mankind, we learn more of god laws from god's prophets that have existed in every decade. We then discard those guidelines that were wrong. But those who refuse to learn, instead, insist that an early science book, the Bible, is all that one must know. They would use morality rather than logic as a basis for all decisions. IOW they would impose their religious beliefs on all others.

Your morality is your circuit breaker. It is protection so that you don't make bad mistakes. It is not a tool for making decisions; only a tool to check yourself.

On the Boeing web today;It looks like Canada is getting serious about gearing up for their role as UN peacekeepers......at least. ;)

The Economist on 1 July 2006 says The order is not just for aircraft. Canada is also purchasing 2,300 supply trucks. The new government is upgrading its military with C$15 billion now and another C$5.3 billion over next five years.

Nothing to do with Bush, except maybe preparing to defend Canada against a Bush invasion. :lol:

But, they have been tapped pretty regularly as UN peacekeepers and should provide their troops with the best equipment they can.

You beat me to it.:right: I may have to go out and rent Canadian Bacon.

Morality is really carefully and often finely reasoned survival behavior, which reasoning in some circumstances sets your group's/family's/nation's/planet's biosphere's survival in a higher priority than your personal survival. If a behavior isn't conducive to survival, it is not moral.