Ahh psypher, where do I begin?! Well first, I must say that you are more fun to arg. . . uh, . . . have an intelligent discussion with, than anyone I've encountered in quite some time!
Next, you may have taken my point here just a bit out of context. I do believe that a society needs rules and structure. 'matter of fact, in some ways I can be quite conservative. I just can't figure out why the CoV needs a "moral code" by which to make "value judgments".
The U.S. is probably the most puritanical Western society on the planet. I believe the CoV is attempting to view and address the world in a less restrictive frame-work. To that end, I went off on a tangent that I occasionally like to rant about.
>...if there is no group standard for right/wrong good/evil - ie. no
>group standard for which courses of action are viable or not viable
>then there's no context for group action. This is not a position
>which we can sucessefully maintain. Group action has become a
>manifest necessity if we want this biosphere to remain amenable to
>the sustenance of conscious life.
Aren't we all adults here (I include amir, age 14, in this "judgement" because to my way of thinking, he conducts himself in a manner pretty much on a par with the rest of us)?
>> Although any and all of us make our personal judgments, I don't
>> believe there is any true "right" or "wrong".
>-hypothetical question- Why shouldn't I kill you then?
Well more to the point, why should you kill me?? To win an argument? I hardly think so; too "whimpy" an approach for you. Is this beginning to make any sense at all? What I am advocating is a form of "self governing". I am not against maxims. I am not against a set of rules which define a social structure as a whole. What I am against is a bunch of rules for the sake of rules. And I am even more against pretty much anything which is going to encourage further "judgements". Personal opinions, yes. "Shoulds", no.