Subject:
|
Re: ...but Japan didn't agree with that assessment.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Nov 2001 08:11:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
241 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > Moral relativism is a bankrupt idea.
> >
> > Are you saying moral objectivism is the correct path? If so, on what should
> > it be based? The bible? The Koran? Book of Mormon?
>
> General principles, agreeable to all people?
That would be fun establishing?
> Something like
> the UDHR? The bulk of world opinion?
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 middle-ground...
I may be wrong.
Scott A
>
>
> > I would have thought you'd have said moral relativism was *good* idea?
>
> See the subject line for relativism, at least in the
> perceptual sense.
>
> LFB
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
19 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
|
|
|
|
