"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote
> >
> > [..]
> > > IOW, we are who we are because we are individuals AND we have been
> > > taught to be who we are -- a socialization process. Any argument of
> > > innateness of anything requires significant evidence from my
> > > perspective.
> >
> > Every living organism is hard-wired for survival, to avoid and recoil
from
> > harm. That is innate.
>
> We disagree. That just means humans experience fear and have knowledge
> about death.

False, ALL organisms gravitate towards benefit and recoil from harm, even
rudimentary organisms and plants.

> If you are going to claim that this is hard wired, please
> describe the 'hard wiring'. Please describe the genetic sequence that
> requires any of us to recoil from harm, yet to actively seek out harmful
> situations contrary to our 'wiring'.

Excitement or stimulation is a benefit which outweighs risk. It's a
tradeoff.

> > Moral precepts, like The Golden Rule, are just ways to
> > organize behaviour in an attempt to minimize harm. Moral codes are
flawed
> > and inconsistent, but they are all based on the fundamental inherent
drive
> > to avoid harm. The suggestion that they are simply random cultural
artifacts
> > is wrong.
>
> LOL. That is YOUR objective and worldview. I find our culture extremely
> paranoid and fearful - some moreso than others. In most cases, I find
> that people tend to overestimate the degree of risk and harm that is
> likely to happen.

Perhaps they do, but you acknowledge that they assess risk, which is my
point.

> All harm is not bad.

That is an absolute statement and a strawman. It's very convenient to assert
absolutes to make a point, but it's not a valid argument.

> As I stated, I consider a 'redemption philosophy'
> to be wholly realistic in that many 'bad' or 'evil' things in the world
> can also be demonstrated to have positive effects and outcomes.

Explain how you understand 'redemption philosophy' .