 | | Okinawa, a foretaste of invading the main islands..
|
|
(URL) forgot how ferocious the battle for Okinawa actually was... but the real point of this article lies elsewhere. Moral relativism is a bankrupt idea. (23 years ago, 31-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | .. but japan was 'beat' by the time the main island was reached.
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message (...) Are you saying moral objectivism is the correct path? If so, on what should it be based? The bible? The Koran? Book of Mormon? I would have thought you'd have said moral relativism (...) (23 years ago, 31-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | ...but Japan didn't agree with that assessment.
|
|
(...) General principles, agreeable to all people? Something like the UDHR? The bulk of world opinion? (...) See the subject line for relativism, at least in the perceptual sense. LFB (23 years ago, 31-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Okinawa, a foretaste of invading the main islands..
|
|
(...) That may be true, certainly a lot of people hold that opinion. Hanson is just another of those people. Doesn't prove the assertion, though. ROSCO (23 years ago, 31-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ...but Japan didn't agree with that assessment.
|
|
(...) That would be fun establishing? (...) So we should "go with the flow", accept morals which we as individuals do not agree with? I'm not saying either moral relativism or objectivism is "wrong" or "right", I just think most of us operate in the (...) (23 years ago, 1-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ...but Japan didn't agree with that assessment.
|
|
(...) At the same time that I won't accept morality with which I do not agree, I must live in a system in which a common morality has been developed. I don't see anything wrong with lots of things that are against the law, so I base my activities on (...) (23 years ago, 1-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ...but Japan didn't agree with that assessment.
|
|
(...) must (...) And even if they do, it's just a case of the middle ground coinciding with the law. ROSCO (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ...but Japan didn't agree with that assessment.
|
|
(...) Clearly, it is not all. (...) I don't quite agree. But in most cases - yes. (...) I have no idea where I stand relative to you or your countrymen? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | More on Moral Relativism
|
|
(...) More Hanson: (URL) article continues showing why moral relativism (and a host of other things like aristocratic guilt reflexes and general politeness) lead to quagmire thinking. I especially considered the bit about how "UN" sanctions morphed (...) (23 years ago, 9-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Moral Relativism
|
|
Rest assured I'll defend moral relativism. :) (...) Honestly, I think it's because most people don't understand (or "really believe in") but still subscribe to moral relativism. Do I think bin Ladin is evil? No. Do I think he should be stopped? Yes. (...) (23 years ago, 9-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Moral Relativism
|
|
(...) From the article: "Yes, we knew all that, and so are now told that our intelligence agencies are inept, naïve, and worse, for not spotting the hijackers in advance. But we also surely suspect that, had any government watchdog agency swept down (...) (23 years ago, 9-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Moral Relativism
|
|
(...) Heck, I can answer that one... What if there were no terrorist threat? Should we expel and disallow Nazism and KKK-ism in the US? How about Communists? What about anti-abortionists? What about Fox, they're often anti-government. At what point (...) (23 years ago, 9-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Moral Relativism
|
|
(...) I believe that's exactly the point he's trying to make. I posted this even though I do not 100% agree with everything it says and this is one of the areas where I'm a bit spongier. I am not too keen on wiretapping for the sake of "seeing what (...) (23 years ago, 9-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Moral Relativism
|
|
(...) thousand (...) Probably. I just didn't really see the relevance of it to the topic at hand, given most people, including moral relativists would probably take that view. (...) Yep, I definitely agree here. But back to the topic... Q: If the (...) (23 years ago, 10-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Moral Relativism
|
|
(...) The US has a history of letting things slide until greatly (and sometimes, repeatedly) provoked. You can argue that's not "morally right" (and I'd tend to agree), but it nevertheless is reality. Further, I am not in any way shape or form going (...) (23 years ago, 10-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Moral Relativism
|
|
(...) How does your system of morals feel about your actually assisting evil because to not do so would be painful? Chris (23 years ago, 10-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Moral Relativism
|
|
(...) to (...) Sure, that'd be pretty impossible, I think. However some rather large evils have been left un-righted, due to political pressure. I just think the assertion that the US is "good" doesn't hold water. They're good when it suits them. (...) (23 years ago, 10-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Moral Relativism
|
|
(...) Under duress? Not great. Voluntarily? Really bad. (insofar as a system of morals can have feelings... :-) ) (23 years ago, 10-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Moral Relativism
|
|
(...) Those who don't get their news from entertainment channels know better. You said this not all that long ago: "My beef with them [sanctions] is that they're not impoverishing the *right things* (...) *enough*, and that they give foamers like (...) (23 years ago, 11-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
