Subject:
|
Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Dec 2001 18:58:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1122 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Markus Wolf writes:
> I want to throw my name in with those who believe there is a difference
> between good and evil. I would challenge you to tell me when rape and child
> molestation could ever be considered good (or at least, not evil).
From my particular standpoint, it would only be morally good when the person
doing it honestly believed they were doing good. However, it doesn't mean
that the person shouldn't be stopped-- nor that one would be morally wrong
to try and stop them. All it means is that you don't get to judge the person
to be evil until you've seen evidence that they KNOW they did wrong.
In the event of rape (for example), I don't think I've EVER met ANYONE who
believes it's good. Or even simply 'not evil'. And I don't expect I ever
WILL meet anyone of that persuasion. But being a moral relativist, I will
allow the possibility that such a person may exist-- and that if they did, I
would hope I would not judge them to be evil for doing so. But I also hope
I'd be able to stop them from commiting such an act. Because for me, it
would be immoral not to try.
> I pity the person whose moral values are so open-minded that they're empty
> minded.
Sadly, the problem with most people is that they believe that in order to be
moral themselves, they CANNOT act against those who similarly are moral. IE,
if I (say) showed Bob why a particular murderer was moral, he might suddenly
feel compelled NOT to stop the murderer because he's used to ONLY wanting to
stop those who he feels are IMMORAL. Essentially, most people only feel that
evil merits preventative measure, and as such are reluctant to stop people
they SHOULD stop-- even so far as to the point that they pity them, and out
of such pity HELP them.
> If that's you, please, please don't have children. And please stay away from
> mine.
That's a little harsh, I'd say-- I'm not offended or anything, but just to
note, that comment's been made before with some rather... flame-festy results...
> Markus
> who believes moral relativism is cowardly and irresponsible. Though I guess
> you'd question my definition on those things too.
See above-- it's not actually moral relativism that's cowardly and
irresponsible, though I do admit that many people who agree with its
principles forget the consequences of adhering to such a philosophy. People
who would allow heinous acts to continue simply because the person acting
isn't actually ill-intentioned aren't seeing the bigger picture. :(
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
101 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
