Morality, ethics and atheism

Holy Crap!
Post Reply
User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73014
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by JimC » Sun May 01, 2022 10:16 pm

rasetsu wrote:
Sun May 01, 2022 1:19 pm

I think you miss my point here in that I am saying it doesn't seem to answer the most basic questions that such a seed must answer to qualify as a seed. According to our intuitions, morality is both objective and non-contingent. Your moral seed is neither. It's not objective because it depends upon values which are satisfied by cooperation and altruism, namely the prospering of the species. The universe doesn't care about the prospering of the species, nor do lions and bears care about human flourishing. And your morals are completely contingent. If our evolution worked out a different way, our morals would be different.
In my initial post, my impetus was to contest the seeming reasonable point by moderate christians, in that they could not see any basis for morality other than influence or guidance from a divine being. By "morality", I don't think they were meaning a detailed philosophical underpinning which can rationally show what all moral behaviour should be. I think they are looking for a basis for compassion, empathy and concern for other human beings. A telling religious phrase is "Love others as I have loved you". The implication in that phrase is that humans need the divine example of love, to have any hope of compassionate behaviour towards others.

So, my purpose was to suggest that our understanding of the evolutionary path of our species, plus our knowledge of how small social groups of primates behave can be responsible for innate tendencies for cooperation, friendship and empathy. Of course, this is primarily directed at one's immediate tribe, but can grow and encompass much larger entities - a football club is much larger than a hominid tribe!

Hermit alluded to the fact that moral values change. At least part of that is being able to encompass larger and larger groupings of those who deserve our feelings of compassion. In slave-holding societies, black slaves were definitely not in this in-group. As the zeitgeist changed, emancipists insisted that "we are all god's children"... ;)

Of course I agree that "the universe doesn't care about the prospering of the species". But any morality that humans develop is not some Olympian, universal morality, it is indeed contingent, and inextricably bound in our evolutionary history. My argument is simply that any morality that we do develop, certainly with much debate, argument and compromises, has a starting point of emotional responses to fellow humans, derived via natural selection and of purely material origin.

If it were possible (and it may not be) for intelligence to evolve in a species that is largely asocial (perhaps like tigers), I'm sure any moral framework they developed (if any!) would be very different to ours...
But there is an additional problem in that cooperation and altruism aren't the only evolved drives and inclinations we possess. Selfishness, greed, rape, aggression, and even warfare all have evolutionary underpinnings as well.
I quite agree! In my original post, I made this point:
There is of course a dark side - competition between rival groups is likely to have generated a tendency for distrust of out-groups...
(I'm not implying that such distrust of out-groups is the only source of innate tendencies which work against moral strivings, but that it is an important one)

Any worthwhile system of morality will recognise that humans possess tendencies (innate and/or cultural) which tend to work against the precepts of a morality that wants people to treat other people well. In many religious systems of morality, a supernatural agency such as the devil encourages our dark side. One can argue that the Christian concept of "original sin" is a de facto recognition of the fact that "Selfishness, greed, rape, aggression, and even warfare all have evolutionary underpinnings"... ;)

And finally, an understanding of evolutionary underpinnings of current human nature can never be the basis for an "ought" in developing moral systems, but such an understanding can illuminate the problems and possibilities. Whatever systems of morals we can develop, they are only derived via human striving, not inspired by supernatural entities. But I still believe that the seed of compassion and empathy developed through millions of years of living in small social groups is there to be part of a wider moral system...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by Brian Peacock » Mon May 02, 2022 9:33 am

JimC wrote:
Sat Apr 30, 2022 9:16 pm
Brian Peacock wrote:
Sat Apr 30, 2022 12:25 pm
It is that, for the religous, what counts as a 'sense of right or wrong' is actually codified sets of moral and ethical precepts which prescribe and proscribe action. For example, hats might be prescribed whereas pork might be proscribed etc. Thus moral and ethical behaviour is conditional on accepting and adhering to certain moral and ethical precepts, typically those of <nominated deity>. If one acknowledges that that which is pro/prescribed (that which is 'the law' so to speak) can itself be unethical (the subjugation of women, the murder of the gayful, the ownership of people as property etc) then one must also acknowledge that what passes for morals and ethics is contingent on factors beyond, or aside from 'the divine'. In this way, all moral and ethical questions, and thus all moral and ethical action, are disengaged from an absolute, fixed, forever unchanging divine "Law" or "Truth" and simply become things which have to be addressed on their own merits, in their own terms, and within their own contexts.
For religious people of rigid belief systems, I'm sure this analysis is correct. However, I was thinking more of the nuanced views of modern, moderate christians, who have moved beyond literalism, and who try to find the source of human goodness in the touch of a divine being. Partly, I think they do that because they cannot conceive of powerful moral impulses and compassionate behaviour arising from the purely material world.
I guess what I'm saying here is that our hypothetical moderate Christian believers--the ones that do not strictly adhere to their deity's "Law"--have already forsaken the concept of a necessary divine morality by subscribing and living to flexible, changeable, contingent, and therefore subjective, moral and ethical outlooks. They may maintain a belief that morality is bestowed upon the universe by a supernatural will of course, and yet in the context of their religion they and their morals are, as Hermit has just pointed out, just as historically, socially, politically, economically, and personally contingent as anybody else's.

I think we have to keep in mind that moderate Christians who say that the good is inspired, or determined, or directed etc by their deity are actually staking a moral claim: not only a claim to a specific set of moral principles and precepts but also a claim that those particular principles are of superior value and utility to sets which have not applied god-stuff &/or to sets which apply it differently. We can see this in the response to challenges like the one Hermit just made regarding religious justifications for slavery, or the subjugation of women, or the ill-treatment of the gayful, or the torture and murder of heretics etc. Their responses vary of course, but they amount to charges that past Christians were ignorant of God's true message, that their morals were impoverished by lack of a proper understanding of the Bible or undermined by gatekeepers who took the Bible's many pronouncements on slavery, the place of women in society, the gayful, heretics and apostates out of context. But in doing this (making excuses!) they actually articulate the flexibility, changeability, contingency, and therefore subjectivity of morality and ethics through the ages, along with the essential arbitrariness of what counts as 'divine' messages, inspiration or teaching on morality' at any given time. Who's to say how future moderate Christians will think about and judge their moral understandings in generations to come(?)

In his debates with religious leaders and thinkers Hitches would often pose a challenge for the believer to name a single god-inspired or god-directed ethical act a religious person could or should perform that a non-believer or a different-believer could not also perform - essentially asking them what moral principle or ethical stance is unique and specific to a religious perspective, and therefore requires a particular religious perspective. I can only recall one person ever rising to that challenge in good faith (can't remember who or where), and their answer was: the act of prayer. I think Hitchens' reply to that was something like: can an act which has no discernable consequences in or for the World really count as a moral act(?) - titters and tumbleweed followed.

Anyway, framing things in this more historical and socially contextual way addresses the consequences of the moral and ethical claims of our moderate Christians without having to cover all that tedious stuff about what morality and ethics are, where they possibly come from, and importantly who gets to decide. It takes morality as a given - albeit a flexible, changeable given.

As with all claims of this nature the validity of the claim rests on its justification. I have no issue with the moderate Christian who might justify the good they do as being the result of 'divine' messages or instruction. A good thing is still a good thing, even if I think there are better or less complicated ways of articulating why it's good than, "Because God said so". And a bad thing is still a bad thing, regardless of its justification. The rest is just haggling.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73014
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by JimC » Mon May 02, 2022 8:57 pm

I quite agree with those arguments, Brian. But I suppose that I am, in this thread, responding to past interactions with friends at my old catholic school. It was, in the main, on what you could call the moderate, liberal wing of the church, big on issues of social justice, not fazed by the prospect of women priests sometime, and often critical of the church hierarchy, etc. etc...

They were happy enough to have an atheist in their midst, and we had some good discussions. But one got a sense that they thought that a non-religious and totally materialist view of the world was a cold and soulless affair, and that it was only via divine intervention of some sort that humans had the capacity to love ("love one another as I have loved you"...) and to institute a morality based on that divine spark. They would probably agree with quite a view of your arguments, in terms of the artificial nature of some religious morality. But their core beliefs were an emotional reverence for a vision of divine love. In such discussions, I was trying to show that there is a purely materialist reason for the ability to love available to all human beings, and that could be a starting point for a totally humanist concept of morality.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by Brian Peacock » Mon May 02, 2022 9:46 pm

JimC wrote:
Mon May 02, 2022 8:57 pm
I quite agree with those arguments, Brian. But I suppose that I am, in this thread, responding to past interactions with friends at my old catholic school. It was, in the main, on what you could call the moderate, liberal wing of the church, big on issues of social justice, not fazed by the prospect of women priests sometime, and often critical of the church hierarchy, etc. etc...

They were happy enough to have an atheist in their midst, and we had some good discussions. But one got a sense that they thought that a non-religious and totally materialist view of the world was a cold and soulless affair, and that it was only via divine intervention of some sort that humans had the capacity to love ("love one another as I have loved you"...) and to institute a morality based on that divine spark. They would probably agree with quite a view of your arguments, in terms of the artificial nature of some religious morality. But their core beliefs were an emotional reverence for a vision of divine love. In such discussions, I was trying to show that there is a purely materialist reason for the ability to love available to all human beings, and that could be a starting point for a totally humanist concept of morality.
Indeed, and yes. :) There is a starting point for a secular morality and ethics - it's just an outlook that doesn't rest on supernatural will.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by Brian Peacock » Wed May 04, 2022 3:19 pm

Humanism is a secular project which seeks moral validation from the religious.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73014
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by JimC » Wed May 04, 2022 8:30 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 3:19 pm
Humanism is a secular project which seeks moral validation from the religious.
No, I think that in general humanism wants to show that it can have moral validation independently from any religious roots...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
macdoc
Twitcher
Posts: 6937
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: Planet Earth on slow boil
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by macdoc » Wed May 04, 2022 11:12 pm

Fuck the religious wankers and their idiotic dogma...humanism has nothing to learn or get validated.
Resident in Cairns Australia Australia> CB300F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by Brian Peacock » Wed May 04, 2022 11:34 pm

JimC wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 3:19 pm
Humanism is a secular project which seeks moral validation from the religious.
No, I think that in general humanism wants to show that it can have moral validation independently from any religious roots...
Who does it display it's moral credentials too?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73014
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by JimC » Wed May 04, 2022 11:41 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 11:34 pm
JimC wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 3:19 pm
Humanism is a secular project which seeks moral validation from the religious.
No, I think that in general humanism wants to show that it can have moral validation independently from any religious roots...
Who does it display it's moral credentials too?
Hopefully the public at large, but I take your point, in the sense that, if one is arguing for a non-religious based morality, then one is telling the religious people that humans can do this shit without needing imaginary friends. I don't call that seeking validation, I call that giving religion the finger! :{D
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by Brian Peacock » Wed May 04, 2022 11:59 pm

:)
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Thu May 05, 2022 6:35 am

I'm with JimC on the basis of human morality, have been for a long time--this is a perennial topic at freethought/rationalist/atheist discussion boards. Something from over a decade ago, in response to a theist attempting to denigrate an evolutionary basis for human morality:
The 'naturalistic explanation' for morality isn't about 'oughts.' That really doesn't even come into it. The explanation examines why there is an evolutionary advantage to the development of certain tendencies that seem to be basis for human morality. It isn't about what any particular individual thinks they ought or ought not to do, but rather an underlying mechanism which has proven successful in the development of the species as a whole.

So in fact, the survival of the species is enhanced by certain types of behavior. Those who engage in that behavior do not necessarily do so because they consciously desire the survival of the species, but rather because they have inherited a tendency to behave in a certain way. This behavior is built upon and enhanced by their particular society.

We may call this 'morality,' but in fact it's rooted in the way the species has evolved. The chimpanzee example is very appropriate here. Do tigers, for instance, ever try to punish other tigers for being 'selfish?' No, because tigers are not a social species. Chimpanzees, like humans, are, however. Why would a god see fit to endow chimpanzees with a form of 'morality,' while at the same time, letting tigers live happily 'amoral' lives?

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu May 05, 2022 7:19 am

L'Emmerdeur wrote:I'm with JimC on the basis of human morality, have been for a long time--this is a perennial topic at freethought/rationalist/atheist discussion boards. Something from over a decade ago, in response to a theist attempting to denigrate an evolutionary basis for human morality:
The 'naturalistic explanation' for morality isn't about 'oughts.' That really doesn't even come into it. The explanation examines why there is an evolutionary advantage to the development of certain tendencies that seem to be basis for human morality. It isn't about what any particular individual thinks they ought or ought not to do, but rather an underlying mechanism which has proven successful in the development of the species as a whole.

So in fact, the survival of the species is enhanced by certain types of behavior. Those who engage in that behavior do not necessarily do so because they consciously desire the survival of the species, but rather because they have inherited a tendency to behave in a certain way. This behavior is built upon and enhanced by their particular society.

We may call this 'morality,' but in fact it's rooted in the way the species has evolved. The chimpanzee example is very appropriate here. Do tigers, for instance, ever try to punish other tigers for being 'selfish?' No, because tigers are not a social species. Chimpanzees, like humans, are, however. Why would a god see fit to endow chimpanzees with a form of 'morality,' while at the same time, letting tigers live happily 'amoral' lives?
Indeed, and yes. Image And it's here that we often get dragged into deeper discussions with the religious, each round involving evermore detailed levels of qualification and explanation as they shift around from mortality as an is to an ought, an inspiration to an instructions, and back again, etc, and whatever else they need to do to maintain a basic position that supernatural will is at the root of all good - and as such is of greater benefit, utility, or general goodness than a godless outlook. And we haven't even started on the question of free will!

And to some extent all that is completely irrelevant. What are people's core values and in what way do they influence how they live their lives &/or impact society at large?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73014
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by JimC » Thu May 05, 2022 7:22 am

Excellent quote, L'emmy. Resonates well with the way I've tended to think about morality...

An interesting SF concept, to envisage an intelligent alien species that arose from non-social organisms, and the very different cognitive and moral landscape they would inhabit. However, I'm tempted to suggest that perhaps social organisms would be the only creatures with a chance of evolving intelligence, so the question might be moot...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by pErvinalia » Thu May 05, 2022 7:57 am

Yeah it would be hard to imagine that the level of cooperation needed for scientific endeavour would be present in selfish species like the American libertarian, for example.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
rasetsu
Ne'er-do-well
Posts: 4994
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:04 pm
About me: Move along. Nothing to see here.
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by rasetsu » Thu May 05, 2022 2:24 pm

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 6:35 am
I'm with JimC on the basis of human morality, have been for a long time--this is a perennial topic at freethought/rationalist/atheist discussion boards. Something from over a decade ago, in response to a theist attempting to denigrate an evolutionary basis for human morality:
The 'naturalistic explanation' for morality isn't about 'oughts.' That really doesn't even come into it. The explanation examines why there is an evolutionary advantage to the development of certain tendencies that seem to be basis for human morality. It isn't about what any particular individual thinks they ought or ought not to do, but rather an underlying mechanism which has proven successful in the development of the species as a whole.

So in fact, the survival of the species is enhanced by certain types of behavior. Those who engage in that behavior do not necessarily do so because they consciously desire the survival of the species, but rather because they have inherited a tendency to behave in a certain way. This behavior is built upon and enhanced by their particular society.

We may call this 'morality,' but in fact it's rooted in the way the species has evolved. The chimpanzee example is very appropriate here. Do tigers, for instance, ever try to punish other tigers for being 'selfish?' No, because tigers are not a social species. Chimpanzees, like humans, are, however. Why would a god see fit to endow chimpanzees with a form of 'morality,' while at the same time, letting tigers live happily 'amoral' lives?
I think this glosses over an assumption of values. Yes, our behaviors serve our interests, but our behaviors don't exist in a vacuum, as anyone observing the climate change crisis can readily observe. As jim suggested, we have evolved to widen our circle of concern from just our tribe or our race to our species. That's an evolved behavior, too. One hypothetical I was going to pose was to imagine you have three people, a white supremacist, a vegetarian who thinks meat is murder, and someone who lies between those two. The white supremacist wants to limit our circle of concern to white people, and so defines blacks as not fully human, and killing them not a serious moral offense. The vegetarian, on the other hand, sees conscious beings like cows, chickens, and pigs of deserving the same protection as do humans on account of their shared traits. The middle person doesn't embrace either extreme. So are any of these persons clearly correct or incorrect about the moral significance of various kinds of killing? Sure, we could just say that evolution operates at the species level, and therefore the right level of concern is the species, but that seems to cut against our understanding that the vegetarian himself is exercising very real moral concerns. At minimum, I think it suggests that abandoning morality detached from evolution and embracing evolution itself as our imperative doesn't seem to fully align with our intuitions about moral imperatives. We're left with feelings we describe as moral which, according to our evolutionary alternative, are mistaken. But how can that be, given that the assumption behind the evolutionary framework is that we should follow our evolution, and moral intuitions are no less evolved than any other behavior. You have what seems an intractable inconsistency here.

An additional problem is that what evolution dictates is near impossible to discern and itself is a self-reinfocing ideal. Humans have evolved considerably in the past 10,000 years, and will likely evolve more in the next 10,000 years. Why should we prefer the behaviors of current day man over those of our ancestors or those of future generations? It seems to be little more than an assertion that we should preserve humans as we are now. But does that square with evolution and the requisite of changing in response to selective pressures. Our behaviors aren't static, aren't universal, and are inextricably linked with how our species evolves as a species. It seems to be a case of the cart leading the horse in that a fluid and ever-changing process should aim to arrest itself and stop being fluid and everchanging. The question of Cui Bono rears its head. Suppose that psychopaths can be considered a separate species of human. We don't currently know this, but it's plausible. Is our imperative to avoid psychopathy spreading to the entire gene pool? On what grounds? Self-interest? As noted, the self / species isn't a fixed and immutable quantity. I don't think I relish turning over my moral choices to cladists to determine who is and isn't the right type of animal and whose interests should be served.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests