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 22:36:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1551 times
|
| |
| |
David Eaton wrote in message ...
> 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.
I think it would be nicer if we could say our country did what we did
because it was in our self interest, because we are striving for good, but I
doubt it.
--
Have fun!
John
AUCTION Page (More soon!)
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/2-many-toys/
TRADE Page http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego/index.htm
MOC,CA++++(6035)SW,TR,old(456)+++TO++PI,SP+DU--#+++++
ig88888888@stlnet.com & IG88888888 on AOL
> 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
|
|
|
|