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:
|
Thu, 9 Sep 1999 04:20:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1583 times
|
| |
|
|
<FHq5L0.7nI@lugnet.com> <37D64FD8.BBF4EB4B@voyager.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> 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.
But what good is moral superiority? When push comes to shove and you
can survive or be moral, what do you do? Do you steal to stay alive?
Do you steal to feed your kids? Do you kill and eat people? These
moral discussions are great for normal life in our enlightened society,
but morality is something you can only afford while times are good.
Agree? Disagree?
> As to history being hearsay. Hmm... Sometimes. And sometimes not.
Right, if you were there and in the know, then it's not. Otherwise, it
is. Right?
> 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).
Nonetheless, it _is_ hearsay for me. Am I misunderstanding hearsay?
The three of my four grandparents who were in the service during WWII
seemed to believe in the holocaust and my wife's maternal grandparents
who are Polish Jews claim to have escaped Nazi-infested France and then
fought in the Maquis, so I have a lot of reason to believe that it is
real, but I still wasn't there.
> 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.
Me too.
Actually, substantially more radical than seeking to prevent genocide, I
can be tricked into an argument where I'm asserting that we damn well
ought to invade such and such and put things to right. (Notable
examples including Brazil to capture and protect the rain forest, and
various barbaric African places to prevent female genital mutilation.)
> 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.
What exactly has to be threatened? How does it have to harm us for it
to be worth intervening? If to let it go would cause national shame, is
that good enough?
--Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
