<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type> <META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18241"> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <DIV>Iš chemijos, kvantinės fizikos, archeologijos ir visokių kitokių mokslų pusės ši knyga nėra labai stipri taip pat, nes ne šių mokslų problemas ji nagrinėja :) Šiaip repect'as bičiukui, visiškai sėkmingai sugebėjo racionaliai išnagrinėti problemas, kurios iš pirmo žvilgsnio atrodo ne racionalaus mokslo sritis, o subjektyvūs žmonių įsitikinimai, turintys labai mažai bendro su objektyvumu ir racionalumu.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Dar pora citatų apie šioje knygoje nagrinėjamos problemos aktualumą:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why bother with defining ethical theories? Surely good people don’t need them, and bad people don’t<BR>consult them. People will do what they prefer, and just make up justifications as needed after the fact –<BR>why bother lecturing people about morality?<BR>Of course, the danger always exists that an immoral person will attack you for his own hedonistic<BR>purposes. It could also be the case that, despite clean and healthy living, you may be struck down by<BR>cancer before your time – the former does not make the science of morality irrelevant, any more than<BR>the latter makes the sciences of medicine, nutrition and exercise irrelevant. One demonstrable effect of a<BR>rational science of morality must be to reduce your chances of suffering immoral actions such as theft,<BR>murder and rape.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>An objective review of human history would seem to point to the grim reality that by far the most<BR>dangerous thing in the world is false ethical systems.<BR>If we look at an ethical system like communism, which was responsible for the murders of 170<BR>million people, we can clearly see that the real danger to individuals was not random criminals, but false<BR>moral theories. Similarly, the Spanish Inquisition relied not on thieves and pickpockets, but rather priests<BR>and torturers filled with the desire to save the souls of others. Nazism also relied on particular ethical<BR>theories regarding the relationship between the individual and the collective, and the moral imperative<BR>to serve those in power, as well as theories “proving” the innate virtues of the Aryan race.<BR>Over and over again, throughout human history, we see that the most dangerous instruments in the<BR>hands of men are not guns, or bombs, or knives, or poisons, but rather moral theories. From the “divine<BR>right of kings” to the endlessly legitimized mob rule of modern democracies, from the ancestor worship<BR>of certain Oriental cultures to the modern deference to the nation-state as personified by a political<BR>leader, to those who pledge their children to the service of particular religious ideologies, it is clear that<BR>by far the most dangerous tool that men possess is morality. Unlike science, which merely describes<BR>what is, and what is to be, moral theories exert a near-bottomless influence over the hearts and minds of<BR>men by telling them what ought to be.<BR>When our leaders ask for our obedience, it is never to themselves as individuals, they claim, but rather to<BR>“the good” in the abstract. JFK did not say: “Ask not what I can do for you, but rather what you can do for<BR>me...” Instead, he substituted the words “your country” for himself. Service to “the country” is considered<BR>a virtue – although the net beneficiaries of that service are always those who rule citizens by force. In the<BR>past (and sometimes even into the present), leaders identified themselves with God, rather than with<BR>geography, but the principle remains the same. For Communists, the abstract mechanism that justifies<BR>the power of the leaders is class; for fascists it is the nation; for Nazis it is the race; for democrats it is<BR>“the will of the people”; for priests it is “the will of God” and so on.<BR>Ruling classes inevitably use ethical theories to justify their power for the simple reason that human<BR>beings have an implacable desire to act in accordance to what they believe to be “the good.” If service to<BR>the Fatherland can be defined as “the good,” then such service will inevitably be provided. If obedience<BR>to military superiors can be defined as “virtue” and “courage,” then such violent slavery will be endlessly<BR>praised and performed.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>--</DIV> <DIV>Doc</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"shedeuw" <<A href="mailto:shedeuw@yahoo.com">shedeuw@yahoo.com</A>> wrote in message <A href="news:gov28n$ot5$1@trimpas.omnitel.net">news:gov28n$ot5$1@trimpas.omnitel.net</A>...</DIV>> Is filosofines puses gal ir verta kazko, bet is psichologines, kiek rodo tavo pateikta istrauka, yra visiskas nesusipratimas </BODY></HTML>