In a government, on a battlefield, or a corporation, or a courtroom or a church, actual persons make actual decisions. If these persons are bound by one set of ethics when they shop, another when they enlist for the army, a third when they apply for a job, a fourth when they go to Friday, Saturday or Sunday service, a fifth when they run for public office, a sixth when they take the bar exam, a seventh when reach the status of CEO, general or senator or judge -- how can they ever make an ethical decision?

God - whichever culture's god - is an idea. It's the idea of a human entity, only with a lot more knowledge and power over the natural world that humans cannot predict or control, that humans have reason to fear.
Where primitive cultures had incantations and spells, dances and chanting to ask supernatural beings for magic solutions to their problems, modern religions have prayers and processions and church services and hymns to ask one of their gods for miracles.
It's all just looking for a parental figure to fix things in our favour.
Another thing both kinds of religious ritual have in common is fire - bonfires, torches, sconces, candles. I think we still haven't quite gotten over the magic/miracle of tame fire.

Ever heard the saying "Don't judge a book by its cover"? — Sir2u

Yes. Have you ever wondered why publishers go to so much trouble to design a cover that conveys what the book is about and put more information on the back and flaps?

So how is the 30,000 year span that you have called historical if most of it is in prehistory?
Or is there another term that you would you like to use for the 25,500 years before the invention of writing. — Sir2u

Prehistory is an acceptable designation for the historical period during which sufficient data is available to piece together what people were doing. I was remiss in not including that.

So you justification for saying that a book is bad is the few words on the cover. — Sir2u

What's it to do with books? You've presented a point of view and advocated for it quite vigorously. I see no reason to move the conversion into unrelated contexts.

I try not to get too set in my way of think, it tends to make one biased. Fanatical even. — Sir2u

By all means, avoid fanaticism!

Your lose, if you cannot argue both sides of a debate you will end up losing it. — Sir2u

Depends on the judges.

So you do not believe that dinosaurs existed or the homo sapiens were around over 300,000 years ago? — Sir2u

I thought the subject was history, not paleontology. My mistake.

Ah, now you have hurt my feelings. :cry: — Sir2u

I'm desolate. I had no idea!

You have no idea how wide my point of view is, I at least could argue without bias from either point of view. — Sir2u

I can only judge by what I've seen demonstrated.

You seem to only have one. — Sir2u

My convictions based on what I have learned are consistent, yes.

Just because I decided to argue from this side today does not mean I could not oppose it tomorrow, because I really don't give a shit about any of it. — Sir2u

In this, we also differ.

And just how long is your historical perspective, if that is not an impertinent question? — Sir2u

Something on the order of 30,000 years. Beyond that, the solid evidence is so fragmented that most of it is conjecture.

One never knows today what is counted as racist, feminist, homophobic and so on. — Sir2u

Doesn't one? I suppose it helps not to give a shit.

I don't think your POV will ever get any wider or your historical perspective any longer.

Really? You can't take Searle's Chinese Room seriously? Mary's Room? The Experience Machine? The Transporter Problem? The Utility Monster? You just mentally shut down when you hear stuff like that? — RogueAI

No, I don't 'shut down'. I question the basis of the example, its relevance to real life, its constraints and its aims. Having thought about it, I then decide whether to take it seriously, dismiss it as silly, reject it on the grounds of invalidity or trickery, or respond to it.

All I asked for is what you think the reasons are for terrorist actions that have happened recently. — Sir2u

I have many thoughts on the topic, and some historical data which I'm not prepared to share since they're available to anyone interested enough to bother. The most straightforward causes of what is called terrorism (When states, including powerful empires with gigantic armies and unlimited ordnance, indulge in terror against weaker opponents, it's called something else - maybe even counter-terrorism) is a people's sense of oppression, repression, and impending existential threat.
When imperialist forces invade a country, or support a rival's aggression against a country, a whole lot of people killed, maimed, bereaved, displaced and very upset. When the incursion is done by a vastly more power enemy who then attempts to govern that conquered nation with little or no regard for its culture and customs, upset turns to resentment. Over time, resentment festers in localized postules of hate and rage that periodically erupt in violence.
Destabilize a region, it tends to be unstable for quite a long time.

I mean that, as far as I can see, civil wars and “Smutas” are an attribute of an authoritarian society, not a democratic one. — Linkey

A democracy (whether sound or flawed) can be split on a key issue, like which religion should be dominant or which claimant has a right to rule, or whether a large segment of the population should be owned like beasts of burden. This particular split was inevitable. It written into the constitution. As industry and trade developed, the southern states, being almost entirely agricultural and focused on export, considered themselves unfairly taxed on imported manufactured good. And the agricultural economy had the single advantage of inexpensive captive labour. That was something the southern states would not give up, and were determined to spread through new territories beyond Missouri as the nation expanded westward. Th federal government would not allow that - could not allow it, lest the slave states outnumber and overwhelm the the free states.

My question is: when the southern states seceded from the northern states and mobilized, was that the decision of the people of those states? — Linkey

I don't know how representative the vote was, but the leaders certainly had general support. Most of the people wanted to retain their accustomed lifestyle; the whites obviously wanted to retain their racial ascendancy and privilege - many still do. The peasants certainly didn't want a whole lot of liberated slaves competing for their pay or having the vote or being allowed to own property. There wasn't much popular support for secession at first (at least in South Carolina where the movement started) as long as the question was one of states rights; the change came when Lincoln was elected president and the institution of slavery was seen to be imperilled.

I heard that the American Civil War was in some sense the second American Revolution, please clarify this. — Linkey

I suppose that could be inferred from the taxation-representation POV. But even that's bogus, when you consider that white men in the South were already over-represented.

But I don't think history shows religious people any worse than irreligious or atheistic people. — Ludwig V

Or vice versa. People who claim a religion don't just kill the irreligious and the heretics, they also kill those who profess a different version of their own religion, and those who profess their same religion but fight for a different king, people of their own nation and faith accused of crimes, their rivals, neighbours, fathers, spouses and other drunks at the same tavern.
Belief in a god stops no humans to from acting like humans; having no faith in a god causes no humans to act any worse.

Does that stop you from thinking about the morality of the situation? — RogueAI

Stops me from taking it seriously, yes.

It's like reading a good fiction book. — RogueAI

Let's just do that then. I'm up for discussing novels.
But if you really want people to think about the moral choices they make, disbelief shouldn't have to be hoisted up into the bell-tower.

I think my point is obvious. The implausibility of a moral thought experiment is beside the point. I mean, what are you doing standing next to a switch near a runaway trolley car with five people tied to the track? — RogueAI

Yes, that one is pretty silly, too. Your point is not entirely obvious to me. Do you mean that however preposterous a hypothetical situation, we should treat it seriously? Or that we should pretend to know nothing about how things work, for the sake of a question the answer to which has no effect on anything?

If you like, imagine the Brits have developed some super duper nerve gas that kills if it touches any exposed skin and the only effective defense is a hazmat suit. All civilians near the landing site have been given an antidote. — RogueAI

Why bother?
I think the concept of ethics and ethical behaviour exist in a realm of real events and people. I see no point in making up these far-fetched scenarios, when there are plenty of examples to contemplate in the world we actually inhabit, where we actually have to make ethical decisions and judge other people who make them.

You think that's implausible??? — RogueAI

I thought the example was about WWII. Quite a lot is known about WWII.
Other implausible thought experiments, and I'm sure there are many, notwithstanding.

Boston Legal, for the fourth time, I think. Still relevant. Bonus: the DVD's come in those old-fashioned bifold cases that let the disc go and accept it back in again, without falling apart in your hand.

I would suppose that methods of doing this had already been tried, obviously without success. — Sir2u

Suppose on what evidence?

Maybe you could enlighten us on what you think might be the causes of some of the terroristsy things that have happened recently and give us some advice about prevent them from happening in the future. — Sir2u

I could. But it would take too long and you would never be convinced anyway, so it seems like a futile effort. You, as well as the world leaders in control, can read the effects of past foreign policy decisions for yourself.

As it says in the article, the Palestinians are the ones that have the responsibility to stop the terrorist that are supposedly acting on their behalf. — Sir2u

And for that, they should die? I respectfully disagree.

Many of the countries that host terrorist groups have corrupt governments that are unwilling to stop them because of the financial gains involved. — Sir2u

Kill 'em all!
But for the sake of all that's unholy, do not, ever address the situations that give rise to terrorism.

Well, if all the Palestinians have to die in order to stop one terrorist organization out of the sixty or so designated by the CIA, why should we question that moral choice? There are more terrorist enclaves in Turkey, Russia, India, Malaysia, South America, Africa.... I wonder who'll be left to benefit from all that lasting peace.
However, he collateral damage I referred to was British civilians and livestock and fish - "the people" who were being defended and their food sources. One assumption that the Germans, if they had the chance, would kill everybody anyway - something that didn't happen in the countries they occupied. That's a more difficult moral choice than sacrificing potential foreign enemies. But Churchill proved himself capable of making that choice, so there is no doubt of his resolve.

The moment-by-moment tactics are one ethical consideration. The long-term strategy is another. A third, which is a moot point in the heat of a military campaign, but nevertheless relevant for future consideration, is how the state of affairs came about that produced this particular crisis. We could ask that regarding Israel's unending hostilities, and the Middle East in general. We could even ask why there are so many terrorists and what conditions, besides killing lots and lots of people, could be altered to produce fewer instead of more.

Who are they going to be loyal to if not the people that make up the nation? — Sir2u

The people are loyal to the monarch and aristocracy, the pope and high clergy, the populist demagogue, the warlord, the caliph, the ayatollah, the governor, the chieftain, the general, the company, the regiment... The rulers are loyal to their own power structure. They do the plotting and declaring; the people do the fighting and dying.

The world is the source of all value, and because of this, the world presents the very possibility of ethics; therefore, the world IS an ethical "agency". It IS the transcendental source of ethics. — Constance

Now I understand you a little better.

Political idea. Right.

It is not that you disagree, rather it is that you can't access the issue. — Constance

I would appreciate if you refrained from telling me what I mean. I disagree that "the issue" of religion is ethical. In the wrong context, I have no wish to access it.
BTW Psychology was not invented by Freud, any more than philosophy was invented by Kant. Humans have been exploring and debating their own nature and their place in the universe. Philosophy, psychology, sociology and law, have been with us from the beginning of language sophisticated enough to communicate ideas. Science, technology and wonder, even longer.

EErr, and just who are the nation and the empire? Surely they are the people? — Sir2u

No. The people, collectively, exist to serve the nation. As for the empire, the people who live there are of far less significance. Individually and in very large numbers, they can be sacrificed for the crown, the state and the empire. These are quite distinct entities in the world-view of a monarchist head of state.

It started as an implausible situation and has continued throughout as one. What if questions usually have that characteristic. — Sir2u

Okay. But some are more fantastical than others. The answer to this particular one: Yes, he'd probably use whatever means he considered effective; he would not be hampered by moral considerations. His biographers would justify it, regardless of collateral damage or harm to British citizens, and continue to hold him up as a hero. It was the nation and the empire he served; the common people were not 'his family'.

Otherwise, as you would have it, religion is reducible a social dynamic. — Constance

No. It's about awe and wonder.

What kind of a "place" is the world that calls for religion to be in the explanatory response to it? — Constance

Too big for us, and we don't like to let go.
That's all. Ancient prelates built on that to control the masses.

Religion IS metaethics, and this requires a look at what ethics is, and so how is it you know you have before you an ethical case at all? — Constance

If you already believe you have a firm grasp on what you consider the essence of religion, why did you ask? I happen to disagree, but I do not have an ethical case, only an anthropological and psychological theory.

This is not a psychological question or an anthropological question. It is much, much simpler: what are the necessary conditions for a problem to be an ethical problem? — Constance

But that was not the OP question, was it? And, no, it's much simpler; it's more contrived.

Answer this, and you have opened the door to an inquiry into the nature of religion. — Constance

I don't think so. I think morality came into - was wedged into - religion much later, and ethics became a philosophical subject later still. The rules of social behaviour - codified and explicated as ethics - exist outside of religion and don't require any supernatural component or coercion.

Incredible! The thought-experiment gets less plausible by the minute.

My dad told me that nearly all of the people in England had gas masks, so I doubt there there would be too much collateral damage. — Sir2u

Then how would it stop the enemy, who would presumably be more prepared for gas attack than the local peasants?

One of the fundamental questions of existence: Why? For no reason whatsoever? Just a result of a vast near limitless universe where every possible combination of planetary factors, collisions, and lack thereof just so happened to result in a place where eventually every genetic variation possible occurred that just so happened to produce the only advanced, intelligent, thinking species that engages in complex thought and communication and have managed to master every frontier available to us as a result of random, nuanced evolution while, somehow, the closest match, supposedly one notch down is a wild, mute occasional-biped running around throwing fecal matter at one another? — Outlander

It didn't start with all that knowledge of the universe or planets genetics or evolution. It started with "Where did I come from?",a question every five-year-old asks. They're not looking for purpose or meaning or specialness, just a simple answer. "We found you under a cabbage." "You grew from a seed in Momma's belly." "The angels brought you from heaven." Any of those will do for a five-year-old - at least for the moment. For an intelligent, imaginative adult troglodyte, there has to be a bigger, better story. There are dozens of origin stories. And from there, a whole realm of the supernatural opens up to speculation, projection, poetry and manipulation.

That just adds up perfectly fine to you, case closed, no further questions? Not to some. Which begs an explanation. Organized religion offers this explanation. — Outlander

Religion offers lots of things, including structure, self-worth, rules of social behaviour, rituals, opportunities for catharsis, community, solace and superiority. Not all of those are constructive.

What were people responding to that gave religious thought its basic meaning? N — Constance

Short and simple: The bigness of the world, the sky full of stars, the power of elements.
They could not control or escape storms, floods, wildfires and droughts. But all these things acted in a way that appears purposeful. So they were given names and personalities that fit the behaviour. From there, it's easy for that big imagination to project a whole pantheon of supernatural beings, with their own feelings and agendas.
And then there is the death of one's parents. Who has not felt the presence of a dead mother or father hovering over their bed some nights? Who has not asked a gravestone for forgiveness or guidance or a blessing? We miss our caregivers and mentors; we don't want them to be gone. So we make shrines and bring fruit and flowers and celebrate them on a designated day.
What's to prevent one of those dead chieftains from being promoted to a place in the stars or among the natural elements?

Not unlike asking what technology is really about apart from the long talk about machines and electronics. — Constance

That's a very different conversation, but has its roots in the same time period.

I hold that religion actually has a foundation discoverable in the essential conditions of our existence. Something PRIOR to all the metaphysical fuss and facile refutation. — Constance

There was a great deal of mysticism and spirituality and superstition long before the organized religions, with sacred texts and a hierarchy of clergy that give rise to most of this 'fuss'.

Whether those early versions of religion have an essence would be difficult to prove. My only concrete source of information about them is archeological, much of which is conjecture. Nore to the point are the surviving oral mythologies of peoples around whose roots are not in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic group of faiths, nor in the far eastern established religions.

What they appear to have in common are certain themes: the origin of their particular tribe or nation, their place in respect of other species and the land, a personification of natural phenomena, some rules of behaviour or warnings issued by a supernatural entity to guide on the path to harmonious living. Another very common theme is humankind's disregard of this sage advice, resulting in a permanent misfortune. Then, there are always morality tales and anecdotes about significant events, as well as exaggerated stories of remarkable characters.

I used to think the essence of religion was the illusion of control over nature. But now I believe that's a later addition. I think at the root of these myths and legend is an explanation of a particular society's idea of human nature and its relation to the world. Pagan practices reflect much of this idea - but then they become ritualized, non-spontaneous, inauthentic. Modern religions are largely rote and ceremony, right down to the precise words uttered in prayer.
I think it started as pure philosophy, then wandered into superstition and lost its way in organized religion.

Not true for me. I made the mistake of buying licencing some maths/science books for Kindle. — GrahamJ

Yes, I see that!
Somebody found yet another way to extract money from defenceless people. Another problem with downloads is that sometimes the vendor goes out of business, or changes format, or has a newer version, and stops supporting programs already in use.
Buy a book, it's yours to do with as you like: highlight, dogear, scribble in the margins... I'll call you terrible names if I buy it at a fund-raising book sale, but it's absolutely your right to abuse that book.
Anything you download from amazon is still amazon's.

The upside of that, of course, that you can use it like a lending-library. And the downside of that is the loss to actual libraries. Any loss to public libraries, whether it's non-attendance or theft or vandalism, is a loss to the community and the culture. So there's another benefit of hard copy: support of the shared culture.

Presumably it would only be on the landing force which has stormed an isolated beachhead? — BitconnectCarlos

That's the existential danger to Britain - massed units on a single unpopulated beach? Such an invasion could be repelled or contained by land/naval forces without risk to residents from a change in wind direction and residual poison left on the beach. I realize the question can be put in binary form, but reality never is that simple. This kind of example is always biased by artificial constraint that ignore factors relevant to an actual decision.

My first responsibility is to my people and my country is in imminent danger. Not my first choice of weapon, but if my hand is forced I'll use it. — BitconnectCarlos

How do you use poison gas on an enemy incursion by sea and air, without affecting a large portion of your own civilian population? You can't. Just have to write off the casualties as collateral damage - which puts

responsibility is to my people and my country

in reverse order. What's left of the country being thus defended will not be known until afterward. Like the Coventry decision on a much larger scale.

Though, I don't believe in modern war as a form of "collective self-defense". The nature of war is simply too diffuse for that. — Tzeentch

Whoever engineers the war sells it to the people who have to fight in it as self-defence (Israel's right to exist) or liberation (the American states' from British taxation) or regaining what is rightfully ours (Ukraine) The actual chain of causation and desired outcome are always concealed, as is the incompetence and short-sightedness through with which a government blundered into its military entanglements. Moral decisions rarely enter in.

Faith goes where fact dare not, bridging many a void. — DifferentiatingEgg

How many of those bridges can be crossed safely? Why take that sick child to a hospital if you know that God can make him whole? And if He doesn't, well, God knows best why He chose to gather that child into heaven.

But the best form of self-defense is running away, or simply not getting into situations that might require one to defend oneself. — Tzeentch

That would - or should - also apply to war? If you behave in such a way as to make enemies, or force other people into untenable positions, sooner or later you will have to defend yourself by killing your erstwhile victims.
Churchill and 'moral' don't really belong in one sentence. He was a pragmatic nationalist and not especially gentle in his methods, at home, in the empire or abroad.

Among many other things, cockroaches are disgusting. — Lionino

And humans aren't?

The other antelopes do.
The lions do.
The vultures do.
The bacteria do.
The grass does. — Fire Ologist

No, they don't. The other antelope are lucky to escape, for the moment; they don't 'work with' the loss of a herd-mate. Vultures, bacteria and grass benefit from the death and decomposition of animals. Another's pain is of no use to them.
(BTW, muscle growth doesn't hurt, either. Damage does.)

But if we want to live at all, we’re going to have to work with it. I didn’t say like it, I said work with it. — Fire Ologist

Yes. Thank your God for creating it, since you consider pain good. Job questioned it and Jehovah told him : Because I'm bigger than you. He accepted that and if it's fine for you, be happy. I disagree that there is anything intelligent or benevolent in a system that requires antelope to die in agony, torn apart by lions. They don't get the option of "working with it".