Subject:
|
Re: More on Moral Relativism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 10 Nov 2001 20:15:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
469 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
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. Same applies to most countries & peoples. The Taliban could probably be
"good" if they didn't harbour some need for power through oppression.
I guess I'm just saying that absolute "good" doesn't have any meaning to me - I
see US (is that a pun? Unintended, promise!) as "more good" than the Taliban at
this particular time, but it's only a relative comparison, based on my moral
viewpoint. The assertion that most people agree, even if true, doesn't change
that. Note my view is not based on the declaration of war (against terrorism),
or the fact that they're harbouring a known terrorist, but on their
demonstrated bad treatment of the people of Afghanistan.
If Britain had declared war on terrorism 10 years ago, when the US wasn't
prepared to, would that make them "more good" than the US?
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
