 | | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes: Snip. (...) I would not agree with the above definition, but rather offer this one instead: MMR is the belief that there *is* no morality. whatever you have the power to do is OK, with no objective (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
(...) No, I think you've got it backwards. Moral relativism is (essentially) stating that morality is subjective & internal, while 'might makes right' is stating that moral action is anything that can be enforced. I've started to go further about (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
(...) ? Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I don't see that connection-- I.E. that "might makes right"... What do you mean by "right"? If you mean "moral" then no. If you mean "not immoral" then yes. But then again, 'weak' would make right too... (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
(...) Yep. That is a good summation of both David's position and mine, I think. Now back to might makes right... *isn't* moral relativism a kind of "might makes right"? I think it is (without too much, if any, twisting) and that's one of my issues (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) It could be twisted into meaning that, I suppose, but just about anything can be twisted around until it supports a 'might makes right' mindset. It boils down to relative morality. When David talks about someone acting morally (or (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Ah-- so (once again I'll try) your logic goes something like this: 1. There were predictions made 2. These predictions prove true in the Bible 3. No human is likely to have been able to accurately make these predictions 4. Therefore something (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
(...) Well, obviously you won't take too keenly to the theory to begin with, BUT, since you asked :) Let's look at our society. Take theft for example. Suppose there was someone who didn't believe in the right to own physical property. He couldn't (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Further, there is no one "literal" interpretation of the Bible, since every conscious reader will by necessity arrive at a different interpretation, just as with any text. Dave! (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) As Bruce and I have pointed out countless times previously, *EVERY* organism that ever lived is a transitional form, fossil or otherwise. Further, my "ad infinitum" comment is a straightforward rhetorical consequence of demanding a (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Even more interesting to me is the question of why creationists feel compelled to "prove" their mythology using the very science that their mythology invalidates by definition. Dave! (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
