 | | .. 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: ...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)
|
