See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil

If there is only 1 god, put no other gods before me may as well be do not piss on Ceiling Cat. God & Lord are capitalized because they are used as names. Just as I capitalized cat in Ceiling Cat yet would usually not capitalize cats. Elsewhere in the HolyBabble, other gods are mentioned by name & their names are capitalized. Jews, like many other groups, once were polytheistic & strong indications of it were left in scripture.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I suppose that in any discussion regarding ethics and morality, the name of God must surely be invoked at some point, so as to provide a final authority upon which one might stand.
One of the more obvious tragedies in modern times is that humanity still has not completely accepted that a final authority is no longer necessary in the pursuit of knowledge; rather, it has become an impediment to it.

Yes.
And this is, in itself, further evidence that the grasshopper has both relevance and purpose.
At the very least, without any consideration of deeper meaning whatsoever, one must at least acknowledge that the grasshopper is a defined philosophy by which the ant may defend and refine his sense of righteousness.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In a symbolic sense, God, by being the symbolic creator, knows how humans work and therefore would be the best source of an objective standard that applies to all. If someone invents a new thing, they are the expert on how it works. If we are all created equal at some level, then at that level the same rules should apply to all, since all are the same. It would be illogical to say we are all the same, however we all need special things just for us or our group. Morality is sort of the operating manual for human nature at the level of how we are all the same; natural and instinctive.

Humans are a unique animals in that we also have will power and choice, thereby adding a subjective wild card. At another level we are not all equal in our on eyes; ego-centricity. Willpower and choice allow us yo think we need something unique or special just for us apart from equal. Ethics deal with this human subjectivity which makes us different instead of equal.

We all have natural instincts, since we evolved from animals, according to science. These instincts have been repressed in favor of choice and will power. Morals deal with this human nature base (all about the base), while ethics deal with the subjective extrapolations that sublimates the natural.

Science law is loosely analogous moral law, in the sense it seeks logical relationships within material reality that are the same for all. Science is not about the needs of willpower and choice. It is not about opinion, wishful thinking or appeasing emotions.

If I have my heart set on the universe being made of fairy dust, science will not try to accommodate my emotions and imaginary choices. If there was an ethical science equivalent, it would try to accommodate using lawyers and emotional arguments. Morals are like the rules science, while ethics is like science fiction. Science fiction has grains of fact, mixed with fantasy and imagination. Science fiction is not limited to reality. At times, it may present a glimpse in what can be. It can also be purely fantasy.

In the New Testament, Jesus had heated arguments with the Pharisees because they would use ethical arguments to exempt themselves from the basic moral laws. In their mind, their subjective and legal arguments were sound. Jesus would challenge their objectivity. This made them angry because, that their arguments were spawned by emotion and therefore emotion was never too far away.

This is predictable, because it has to do with the way memory is created in the brain. The core regions of the brain are involved in the writing process of memory to the cerebral matter. During the writing step, the limbic system adds an emotional tag to thought memory.

This binary, connected to thought and emotion, allows feelings to induce thoughts, and/or thoughts to induce feelings. For example, I can feel sad and images of gray memories appear. Depression starts with feelings. Or I can think about cake and induce the feeling of hunger.

The direction of thoughts to feeling is useful, because it allows a way to internally judge thought sequences based on the feeling tones that appear; intuition. If I reason a line of thought, subtle emotional triggers will run parallel to the thoughts due to tags. Often this is subtle and need practice to sense.

On the other hand, if we induce emotions first (get the crowd angry) specific emotions will trigger connected thoughts as a secondary response. Ethics tends to use this approach, such that thoughts are designed appear as an induction; false intuition. The divide between black and white or male and female, is there to induce an emotion of fear or anger. This does not start with calm logic so thoughts can trigger subtle emotions of the pros and cons. This emotion first technique is how you gain public support for ethical choices. The herd gets to enjoy the marvel of thinking, even if this is done with an emotional prosthetic. If you take away name calling that induces the emotions, the prosthetic is removed and thinking is stopped.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not entirely true.
Try sticking, say, an aircraft designer into a fighter jet and see how well he gets on.
(Besides this says NOTHING whatsoever about whether or not "god" is either the "inventor" OR the "expert").

Unsupported claim.

Whut?

Unsupported crap.

No it's not.

Citation needed.