Subject:
|
Re: History as hearsay (was Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:35:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1586 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I'm reading it... Not sure where it is going, but I will say this.
> Morals are relative only to the extent that some are better than others.
> I hold any morality that says it is OK to violate rights as inferior to
> one that does not.
Where is it going... hmmm.... the basic arguments (forgive any misquotes,
John D):
Q: Are actions good solely by their consequences, or is there an underlying
morality which judges them regardless?
A: I think we're more or less agreed at this point in time that there is an
underlying morality which judges actions. I'd say both rights (justice) and
charity fit into moral actions, John says just rights.
Q: What is justice/morality based on?
A: I say it's rooted in emotion which is dealt with logically, John heretofor
has argued it's solely logical (although he acknowledged an emotional root in
his most recent post... maybe we're not arguing too much after all... we'll
see).
Q: Is there a universal morality?
A: I say not really, if there was, it'd have to be infinitely long, John says
there is one, relatively short, but it would satisfy everyone's moral questions
once and for all if it were known (but whether they abide by it is another
issue)
Q: Is the Adventures Egyptian theme cool?
A: Yes (both of us)
> As to history being hearsay. Hmm... Sometimes. And sometimes not. I'd
> like to think that the Holocaust is pretty well documented as having
> actually happened. Calling it hearsay would do a disservice to the
> millions who suffered atrocities at the hands of members of the species
> (but not their fellow men... to do that to a person is to renounce your
> right to be considered human).
I'd have to agree. More recent and documented history is much less hearsay, as
I see it. As for history about the great flood, the exodus, atlantis, etc., a
lot of that is much more hearsay. But it's pretty tough to deny recent
documented history. Plus, it doesn't get you anywhere. If you say that history
is completely hearsay, then what would you say the "real" history is, and what
would you base that on? Why bother calling it hearsay, if it's sufficiently
proven? Anyway, mute for more ancient history. That's much more difficult to
say much about.
> I, believe it or not, have a hard time reconciling my desire for the US
> not to be the worlds policeman with my desire that we never allow things
> like the Holocaust to happen again.
>
> Where is the line? Do we allow one person to be killed, one thousand?
> one million? When do we need to take a decision that our country is
> threatened by atrocities being committed elsewhere.
Just on that note, I think I agree with you; I'm just not sure about the "real"
reasons we entered into WWII anyway. I'm sure it's not like we were content to
let them fight until we heard of the atrocities going on over there, and then
jumped at the chance to fight the world's evil. However, it would be nice if we
could guarantee that our government would only act in the intrests of good,
rather than of self-interest.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
277 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
|
|
|
|
