Posted: 16 Jul 2010 11:56 PM PDT

Richard White :

11 Jul 2010 5:40:03pm

Alan promised a discussion regarding one's moral obligation to oneself, instancing suicide and masturbation. However, these examples were not directly addressed on the 10th June. Will they be addressed on the 17th? If not why not?

Moderator: Hi there,
We made a radio promo based on what one of the guest's mentioned to us as part of Kant's ideas regarding our duty to ourselves - this promo was of course recorded BEFORE our public event. Our guest then didn't end up referring to masturbation and suicide which I agree was a shame. So there is the simple answer to your question, though it seems that we have very much displeased you! Thanks, The Philosopher's Zone

Reply Alert moderator

Five Filters featured article: Headshot - Propaganda, State Religion and the Attack On the Gaza Peace Flotilla. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.

Philosophy 101 With Liz Smith: The Octogenarian Looks Back

Posted: 16 Jul 2010 09:23 PM PDT

May I say how much I appreciate your ability and willingness to find the good in people? I do too. You describe Ed very lovingly, but you both were seeking different things. You were honest with each other, and did what you thought best at the time.

My poor 89 year old mother is still angry with my father whom she rightfully divorced some when I was 14. (In fact, she should have divorced him when I was 3, as she wanted.) He died when I was 35, and I'm now 49, but, even though the relationship is *truly over*- he's dead! she still hates him, and carries this burden around with her. It poisons her relationship with we, her children and with the rest of the world.

So, thank you for seeing the good and being fair-handed! It takes two to make a marriage, and it takes a loving and grown up person to take responsibilty for her share in what went wrong.

Not everyone grows up, and my poor mother never did. We, their children, lost from it, but I am determined that my children will not feel that way about me.

Respectfully,

Constance in the Sierra Foothills

Five Filters featured article: Headshot - Propaganda, State Religion and the Attack On the Gaza Peace Flotilla. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.

Philosophy Lite: There must be some ultimate rules about how we should live

Posted: 16 Jul 2010 02:40 PM PDT

Originally published July 16, 2010 at midnight, updated July 16, 2010 at midnight

By Raymond Smith

Moral Relativism is the view that moral or ethical statements, which vary from person to person, are all equally valid and no one's opinion of "right and wrong" is better than any other. In other words, there is no ultimate standard of morality.

From the beginning of time, men have disagreed about standards of morality, often from a selfish point of view, not wishing to be constrained by someone else's view. Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) held that nothing is inherently good or evil. Today, due to a liberal media and education system the idea is sweeping the country. It doesn't take a social scientist to tell us that that cannot work.

According to a a survey done by Barna Research back in 2001, about of all adults in America rejected the idea that there are absolute moral values. If true, that is a scary situation. No country can survive if it is divided against itself. While we are being taught this divisive philosophy, we are at the same time being taught to be tolerant of other people's views. It is politically incorrect to stand in judgment of another persons' ideas. Common sense tells us there must be some ultimate rules about how we should live. There is such a standard, the Holy Bible, and it has stood the test of time. Relativists deny there is such a standard, and say that morality is subjective.

It's easy to see that the foundations of modern civilization were not built on a philosophy of moral relativism. The very act of passing a law and enforcing it suggests a fixed standard that everyone is expected to adhere to. If everyone in a society truly acted as though right and wrong were purely matters of opinion, then society would implode into a battle of "might makes right." While we all agree that theft and murder are wrong, other areas such as sex and foul language are being questioned today.

Theologian Peter Kreeft states that relativism is the single most important issue of our age. C.S. Lewis recognized the threat two generations ago. When Pat Buchanan told us in 1992 that we were in a culture war, all the media laughed, sneered and barked at him. Today, everyone knows he was right, and the culture war is about standards of biblical morality. People today say it is a sign of the times and you can't turn back the clock. Well, we will continue on this path to our peril. God is patient, but there is a limit to his patience.

Relativists are most often those who believe in evolution. The two ideas go hand-in-hand. If the world was created by blind chance, then it has no meaning and purpose; thus morality is open to private interpretation.

George Washington, in his farewell address to the nation, stated, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. There is a great benefit in obeying God's laws.

Raymond Smith is president of the Strong Families of Victoria.