Prodvocalist

Mm. How to put this. Wikipedia, while a wiki and thus user-editable, is also an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. If you feel that it is your moral responsibility to enlighten the masses that there is no such thing as moral responsibility, then there are plenty of philosophy forums you can do that on instead which welcome such submissions- just fire up Google, and propound your beliefs to your heart's content. SnowFire 18:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

SnowFire

This is in reply to your simplistic analysis of philosophy. Every view of free will and truth is expressed,except for the scientific analytical view. I am not saying that morality is unnecessary, by any means. I am merely expressing the truth, that somewhere in man's beginnings, morality was developed as a means to control the actions of others through the 2 basic instinct-emotions of love and fear. This is undisputible scientific fact. More can be learned of this via researching psychology and sociology. I choose to remain anonymous, because I see no point in claiming any favor or disdain from anyone because of my willingness to convey truth. I realize that it is necessary for morality and law to exist, lest the world be rent with greed. I find that the lack of acknowledgement for this view is contrary to the efforts of finding truth. If you would research further into the subject of free will, you would find that this very same basic view was actually used as a defense in court. The willingness to turn a blind eye to that which we dislike is astounding. Wouldn't you agree?--Prodvocalist 20:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)