1  2  |   Order by index

Jun 14, 2003, 8:29am

"syntax" <syn at swcity.net> wrote in
news:3eea2735 at server1.Activeworlds.com:

> Where do you find the time to type these huge responses? lol
>
> Does anyone even read these??

No :-P Except perhaps The Lady, but she doesn't count.

KAH

Jun 14, 2003, 9:03pm

Didn't think so. ;-)
--
- Syntax -
http://www.swcity.net
http://forum.swcity.net

[View Quote]

Jun 17, 2003, 7:36am

Yes, it has happened and is still happening; people kill others usung
religion, nationalsim ( national security) or whatever reason to do it. It
seems to be ok to have a relative moral if a nation has it, but not on an
individual basis.
I am not pro a freedoom where people could go out and kill someone just if
it feels morally right; but I think one should be allowed to think
teoretically that killing someone would be moraly right.
I belive in a freedoom where you can think anything you want and do anything
you wish as long as you do not harm anyone else.
As for your question if it would be ok to kill if it feels morally right.
One example is the Iraque war and what happened before. I do NOT wish to
start a new fight over it, I just use this as an example withouth taking any
parts. Saddam killed a lot of people; maybe he thought it was morally right
or even in the interest of the national security. Bush send his troops to
Iraque and killed iraquean peopel, I am sure Mr Bush also thought it was
morally right. In the end what makes one killer more morally right than
another?

Drac
goober king <awnews at awnews.org> kirjoitti
viestissä:3EE9E743.9030402 at awnews.org...
> The problem with moral relativism is that if everyone were to follow it,
> the world would be a place of total chaos. Just think: If someone
> started a killing spree against gays or blacks or abortionists or any of
> the other persecuted groups, using the excuse that they are morally
> justified in ridding the world of these people, then, in a morally
> relative world, no one could do anything to stop that person. Since he
> believes that he is morally just in his actions, that must mean it's ok,
> right? :P
>
[View Quote]

Jun 17, 2003, 9:41am

And therein lies the problem. To the moral absolutist, there is no such
thing as being "more morally right or wrong". You're either morally
right, or you're morally wrong, end of story.

Continuing with your Iraq example, Saddam killed Iraqis to prevent
uprisings and maintain his leadership position. Saddam was definitely a
relativist, as he felt he was morally justified in maintaining his grip
on the country. Bush also subscribes to a form of moral relativism, as
he felt justified in getting rid of Saddam by any means necessary,
including war. However, the rest of the world seems to subscribe to a
more absolutist policy, as they were both against Saddam's actions and
the war.

Being a moral relativist or absolutist is fine when all you do is
contemplate moral theory. But when it comes down to brass tacks and you
have to act on your beliefs, there doesn't seem to be any right or wrong
answer and this argument will continue for ages.

[View Quote]
--
Goober King
Absolutely relative
awnews at awnews.org

Jun 17, 2003, 2:24pm

Yes, I know there is no right or wrong when it comes to belives and actions,
only opinions.
What comes to beeing more or less morally right or wrong; I can think of a
situation where you have to chose from two to you wrong options. You would
have to start thinking which is less wrong. I think a moral absolutist
should never stop asking the question " are my believes right, and why?",
because otherwise one start taking things for granted without seeing the
options. When this happens we end with stupid laws and tradiotions that are
not based on logic, but on something someone once said, because he thought
it was right.

Drac
goober king <awnews at awnews.org> kirjoitti
viestissä:3EEF282A.7000700 at awnews.org...
> And therein lies the problem. To the moral absolutist, there is no such
> thing as being "more morally right or wrong". You're either morally
> right, or you're morally wrong, end of story.
>
> Continuing with your Iraq example, Saddam killed Iraqis to prevent
> uprisings and maintain his leadership position. Saddam was definitely a
> relativist, as he felt he was morally justified in maintaining his grip
> on the country. Bush also subscribes to a form of moral relativism, as
> he felt justified in getting rid of Saddam by any means necessary,
> including war. However, the rest of the world seems to subscribe to a
> more absolutist policy, as they were both against Saddam's actions and
> the war.
>
> Being a moral relativist or absolutist is fine when all you do is
> contemplate moral theory. But when it comes down to brass tacks and you
> have to act on your beliefs, there doesn't seem to be any right or wrong
> answer and this argument will continue for ages.
>
[View Quote]

1  2  |   Order by index