Do feelings count?

A moral consensus is reached through logic.
We weigh and measure the impact on ourselves and society. In this process it becomes a societies overall concensus. One can then make an objective statement about that generally accepted rule.
If we sanctioned killing people at will for what ever reason it would not be logical. The result would not be desirable by the majority. Nor would it serve the species. The detrimental impact it has on society as a whole is observable in many ongoing situations throughout the world. Not to mention that not one person in the world wants to be the one killed asside from suicidal tendancies and thats another birds nest all together.Now in a pure sense there is no such thing as objectivity. there is only objectivity in and out of a given perspective. Since all we have is our perspective, objectivity in it's ideal form cannot be achieved.

You are making the mistake of using exceptions to the over all picture to argue that the over all picture is invalid. You are also using examples that only reflect a certain portion of those societies. Recorded history though valid, is only a small and incomplete view of a much more complicated picture. When 2 people share and understand meaning things change. Or have you not noticed this in the course of your lifetime? Again you are looking at the parts and missing the reality of the whole.
It is like saying that no force of physics is real just because we can detect thier effects. Then physics is only real to who? It is exactly the same. There are many perspective on what is rocker and what is not. There is a general objective envelope we can use. The term evil reflects things that directly undermine the overal picture of what is morally good. This objective reality is in a certain state of flux.....go figure....lol All the major religions share a basic moral code.

Your exceptions were not just similar but identical.
In what instance in reality do exeptions make the rule?So if I understand you correctly you feel there are no inherantly good or bad human behaviors?
So anyone can do anything to you or your family and friends and it will mean nothing to anyone. Try doing anything to anyone and see how far you get.
It would be interesting to observe you over a period of time to see if you practice the nonsense you are attempting to argue. Then you are simply the exception and not the rule. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems there is an air to the tone of your comment. Is there something wrong with this supposed squashing you are reffering to? You wouldn't be having feelings about that now would you? I did not single out any particular religion but you were quite quick to. Religions haven't done it. People do it. It happens all over the world in all races and beliefs at present,past and will in the future. I believe your above post is very telling of your view and mine.
I will let the example stand for itself.

He very clearly stated he has no concept of good and evil. Good and evil, right,wrong, it means nothing to him according to his own admisssion. According to him he has no feelings to count either way.
Why exactly should it mean anything to either of you? This is getting farther from the tree but I would like to know if you would be so inclined to explain your position. Aparently you associate the terms good and evil in small circles.
All the major religions have codes of moral conduct in common. Call it what you will. It spells the same thing. It seems you two among others are really hung up on the Jewish/Christian/Muslim thing. Though it would be interesting to discuss Hindu,paganistic,native american, or other various beliefs that is for another forum topic- "highly overdue"
The narrow scope of the general responses on this sight is not productive and seems to be entrenched here. In this case I did not steer it there, the two of you did.This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 03-08-2006 04:14 PM

Yes. Motivations vary. There are basic truths of bad and good behavior that nearly all people share. They are common because they have stood the test of time as good sense. Where in the world is stealing from each other at will sanctioned by a majority? Where in the world is murdering at will sanctioned by the majority? Where in the world is raping either sex at will sanctioned by the majority?
Where in the world is random violence of any kind, at will, sanctioned by the majority?
There are instances where people will justify nearly anything but as a whole simple logic dictates it is not a good path to go down. If this were not true the world would be a very different place. Enough destructive behavior occurs as it is.I appologise for I not only walked away from the tree but were heading out of the orchard.
I will propose a new thread.

This is a very poor example. Why? because it does not invole a violation of a moral conduct but involves a violation of a number of moral codes that conflict with each other. One must make a choice as to which ones they will break and which ones they will adhere to.
You are correct in that there is no clear choice. My point has been all along that the lines of thinking you used to weigh and measure your options in this example are moral issues that nearly all rational humans throughout the world share and will measure this example scenario by. That is our basic sense of "good and evil" "right and wrong". The fact that you used this process shows me you believe them too. Unless of course this is all just for the sake of debate in which case the entire interaction is pointless in context. I have started a
thread for this topic if you are interested.

I am quite amazed that no administrator has stepped foreward to keep this thread on topic. Is it because they have limited time and have not viewed this yet? I would hope that is the answer. The alternative does not speak well of this sight.

Now that was a mouthful.

Can we objectively say by observing this interaction between robinrohan and chriroptera that feelings do indeed count?