Subject:
|
Re: False premise in this message needs to be identified as what it is
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:34:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1580 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lee Meyer wrote:
| |
the point I was trying to make was that when you deal with a topic
that has moral/religious implications (such as homosexuality), if before the
|
There are no moral implications in the issue -- except for the immorality of
behaving in a hostile manner toward a harmless minority, of course.
|
Under your morality, perhaps.
I recognise that different people hold different moralities, and under other
moral systems, there may well be moral implications here.
However I also hold the (somewhat unpopular and somewhat hard to prove
absolutely) view that some moralities are superior to others. Not just in a “my
morality is better than yours” sense, but absolutely. I’ve made this case
(rather unsuccessfully) before... interested parties could go digging, but the
basis I tried to use was that more life affirming moralities were more pro
survival and therefore evolutionarily preferrable.
However, at least in the *non* absolute sense, I suspect that both you and I
hold that a morality that is more tolerant and less likely to assign “immoral”
labels to activities and beliefs that don’t violate the rights of others is
“better” than one that is less tolerant or quicker to judge who’s a sinner and
who isn’t.
Do you agree?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
151 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
|
|
|
|
