 | | 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)
|
