| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > That makes capitalism moral and communism immoral. That's a good enough
> > > argument right there.
> >
> > Excuse me? How does what you have stated above the last line make one moral
> > and one immoral?
>
> Unless it is moral to dispose of people and all their property however a
> central committee sees fit, one is moral and the other isn't.
But it isn't clear at the extremities whether your implication of morality is
correct. For instance, during the recent discusion of the handling of Ender by
the powers that be, you acknowledged that they were not clearly evil because of
the gravity of the situation. So even you agree that in _some_ cases the
morality of self-disposition breaks down as an absolute. I certainly agree.
But how, if we're going to believe in a system with exceptions, do we determine
where the exceptions lie?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) OK. Fair enough. If a system fails to live by its principles in extremis and acts in immoral ways, then it isn't perfect. But we can still quite easily judge it to be morally far superior to a system that systematically acts immorally. (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) Sum of total happiness will be higher, per capita. There may be individual excursions from the mean. In fact there better be! (...) Communism can't be democratic, freemarket systems can't be dictatorial. (...) Unless it is moral to dispose of (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
