> Which brings us to the nature of morality again - that was not meant as much as a string of yes/no questions as I'm afraid it was percieved. The question was: do we have morals because we're good at heart, or because we're afraid of the consequences of evil?

Neither. But I don't think any of this is relevant.

> So, it's alright with God if you cause mass destruction and death and suffering, as long as you meant well?

I didn't say that. I think that you are illustrating here is why your own pressure to arrive at a definitive, comprehensible answer is a futile effort. There IS NO easy, definitive answer to these questions, as you have just shown by finding exceptions to my general rules. Of course God minds if death and destruction is caused. But as far as the actions of one particular person is concerned, is God going to hold him accountable for it if he neither meant to nor wanted to cause death and destruction? I don't know, but I would hope not, and I wouldn't think so.

>Or does it just work in the other direction; no matter how much good comes of it, if the intent was evil, it is an evil act?

Of course it was. But again, this is arguing from a personal perspective rather than a societal perspective. On Judgment Day, if God sees that you intended to do evil and tried to do evil, well, I don't know what will happen, but I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that.

> So God cares more about intent than about results.

Well, I'm guessing so. On a *personal* level.

> If that's true, can we really put Him in charge of morality in technological development? He seems to be working from an agenda that is not always going to be beneficial to man...

"Seems" being the operative word. Of course he is.

> > Who makes these decisions? Whoever is
> > in a position to.
>
> So, might makes right? I can, therefore I am justified in doing so?

You're completely misreading me. You're looking for something you aren't going to find. Throughout this thread, different people have been talking at different times about very different things. You seem to be wanting a definitive and correct answer to the questions being raised. I, on the other hand, was speculating on all that we CAN do to best work through or around the problem. No, might does not make right. No, whoever is in a position to do something is not always the right person to do it. Of course not. That's absurd. But do you really honestly think there is any better way to handle things in general? I'm telling you that my educated guess about these questions is that there are NO easy or foolproof answers. The *best* we can do (i.e., not a definitive answer in a theoretical world) is if each person makes honest decisions with the interests of God and humanity taken at heart.

> But impact on humanity isn't always bad - you can't shy away from important, influential decisions just because there's a chance that you'll screw up!

I don't think anybody said that. I didn't. It's not true. But if that "chance" is large, and the potential benefits aren't large enough to compensate, my "honest decision in the best interests of God and humanity" would be not to try. If the benefits outweigh the potential losses, maybe I should try after all. But before you ask, no, there is no easy or definitive way to estimate those values, and it's fruitless to try to find one.