"Charlie Self" wrote in message
oups.com...

Wrong. We are subject to the same basic ethical rule as everthing
else.
If it's good for the survival of the species, it's "right." If it's
bad for the survival of the species, it's "wrong."

Of course it's not that simple. There's long-term vs short-term
survival, the importance attached to a stasble society, etc.. But the
basic rule is there.

That rule doesn't stand up to widely varying cultural values for even a
second. Gonna need to come up with a different rule.


In what way doesn't it stand up? You make a flat statement without even
a smidgin of proof or a single example.


Devil in the definitions. Euthanasia of the infirm, insane and elderly is
good for the long-term survival of the species, reduces competition for
scarce resources. How's that for a single example?

I know that the one-worlders like to think that there are ethical absolutes,
what they don't realize is that the same arguments they use against
religious justification can be used against their dogma. Is an
anti-religious fanatic any better than a religious one?