(June 5, 2013 at 9:43 pm)Aran Wrote: The dilemma for me is that the morals we create have no intrinsic value, as money has no intrinsic value.Yet none of that stops people from spending money, or desiring to accumulate it. Intrinsic or not, money is still recognised as having value. Similarly with our morals. It may indeed be true that there's no such thing as intrinsic moral value, but people tend to behave as though there is. Which is more important?
(June 5, 2013 at 9:43 pm)Aran Wrote: There is no moral code set in stone. What one man considers righteous as per his moral code may well be abhorrent to another.
Sorry to sound harsh, but this isn't a judgement you get to make. One man's moral virtue might indeed be another's moral vice, but that's their issue and unless you are personally involved, and no-one's getting hurt against their wishes, neither you nor I should even care. Interestingly, there does seem to be a Venn-diagram-style overlap where society generally agrees on what is moral and what isn't, i.e. murder, child porn etc. It's almost as though these things had an intrinsic value, isn't it?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
