Why the reference to the Bible?

The point is that moral behavior goes beyond simple self-interest. Just looking out for yourself and your own is the most basic behavior one would expect from anybody. Morality is about doing what’s right regardless of whether or not you personally will profit from it.

And if anything, that particular reference notes a certain smug malice in moralities. Two serious issues.

(A) How is referencing the Bible a “serious issue?”

(B) Where exactly do you see “smug malice” in that passage?

And apparently, not being an extremist where The New World is concerned puts me into a very small minority.

The reason I mention it is beacuse a friend saw it last night and raved about it today. This is a guy that I didn’t think would like it.

The 14 year old girl who plays Pochahontas from 14 to 23 is brilliant.

Trust me on this one, Mike.

Go rent it NOW!

It’s beautiful. Exquisite! A masterpiece!

The only people who dissed it are the ones who like to watch things “get blowed up good.”

I have heard that–anthroplogically speaking–it’s very accurate. When you see the ships sailing up the river from the Native’s perpective, you get a real sense of doom.

Dude, rent it. If you don’t like it, I will Paypal you the rental fee. (Offer exclusive to the Brothers Godesky.)

I already know the problems with Columbus, though. But we also must keep in mind that civilized society is hardly the norm. So the conquest of the Native Americans, for instance, is hardly evidence that stronger societies will always subjugate weaker ones. This happens in civilization because our society depends on constant expansion for its existence. In most hunter-gatherer societies, there is nothing to be gained from fighting other cultures to the point of annihilation.

Have you and Jason seen The New World? It’s out on DVD as of yesterday. I saw it back on january on the big screen and will receive a DVD copy from Netflix tomorrow.

Once people have seen it, they will understand why we need to stop celebrating Columbus Day.

The definition of a word is a tricky thing. The best way to define a is to look at how it is used.

One use is to make people feel superior to others who do not as they do, this can cover a variety of actions from how you speak to how you dress, to even how you treat others.

While a sense of superiority may often accompany moral behavior, I don’t know of anyone who defines it that way. For instance, take your example about manner of dress. If I’m wearing an expensive suit, that might give me a feeling of superiority over someone in a t-shirt and sweatpants. But neither I nor anyone else would consider that to be a moral superiority.

The flipside is that it is entirely possible to behave in a manner that society would consider to be righteous and derive little or no sense of superiority from it. So clearly, morality and superiority are two very separate things.

Another definition of morality is a set of rules that a society agrees to, in order to alow it to become a strong society better able to compete with other cultures and societies, and eventually leading to their conquest and subjugation.

I agree that moral systems help to strengthen societies, but why does that necessarily have to lead to other societies’ “conquest and subjugation?”

One use is to make people feel superior to others who do not as they do, this can cover a variety of actions from how you speak to how you dress, to even how you treat others.

Another definition of morality is a set of rules that a society agrees to, in order to alow it to become a strong society better able to compete with other cultures and societies, and eventually leading to their conquest and subjugation.

Therefore what is moraly right, are actions which allow you to feel superior to other people, or help your society become strong and conquer and subjugate other cultures and societys. And what is moraly wrong are actions which work against those objectives.

Stephen Wordsworth