Subject:
|
Re: More on Moral Relativism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 10 Nov 2001 12:42:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
341 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> Q: If the "war against terrorism" is absolutely morally right, why wasn't it
> declared 5 years ago? Ten years ago?
>
> A: Public opinion. Before Sep 11 2001, it would have been political suicide.
> So, even if the war itself is morally right, the choice to delay it was
> political.
>
> So where does that leave the moral stance of the US government[1]? Is it OK to
> delay something which is morally right for political advantage, even though
> that may result in actions which are morally wrong?
>
> ROSCO
>
> [1] Probably picking mainly on US here, because that's where UbL seems to be
> focusing his attention. However, it applies to all governments supporting the
> current action which could have acted sooner.
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 to try to defend the
actions of the Bush I and Clinton administrations (or Bush II prior to That
Day) in not coming to grips with this. I understand the realpolitik behind
the Foggy Bottom thinking, yes.
That said, it's possible to be morally right and yet choose not to act. My
system of morals doesn't require me to go forth and right every evil no
matter how small.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
