Greatest I am wrote:
The non-religious seem quite good at devising, better than theistic laws, as most of the moral tenets they follow are showing to be making more peaceful and law abiding people in countries where there is less religion.
Still: What non-religious people in what set of circumstances in regard to what sets of behaviors that come into conflict over what particular moral prescriptions and/or proscriptions?
Though I certainly agree that to the extent any human community eschews moral and political objectivism [God or No God] there is a greater likelihood that interactions will revolve more democratically around the rule of law...revolving in turn around moderation, negotiation and compromise.
I only point out here that the arguments of those like Marx and Engels are an important consideration in regard to the role that political power plays. Political power is derived from economic power. And economic power is often decisive when laws are enacted.
In particular how this is manifested in the modern world through crony capitalism in the West and variations of state capitalism in nations like China and Russia.
Greatest I am wrote:Don't go by reactions in this kind of place as too many are a holes with nothing better to do than bully.
Regards
DL
I react here as I always do. By asking...
What authority do you believe acts to guide you in your moral judgments? How did you come to acquire this view given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein in precipitating the existential contraption "I"? How would you go about demonstrating in a particular context why your own value judgments are said to be either the optimal manner in which to choose one's behaviors or are in fact the only rational manner?
