Subject:
|
Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 2 Jan 2000 02:42:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1348 times
|
| |
|
|
On Sat, 1 Jan 2000 19:24:42 GMT, "John DiRienzo"
<ig88888888@stlnet.com> wrote:
> In what guise would you expect Him? Could it not happen that someone
> could formulate their (and His) idea of good, put it into practice, and then
> people see that it works?! I think that is much more likely than hearing
> the heavens talk.
So 'good' is "what works"? That's cultural Darwinism.
It's also moral relativism, whether you like it or not. Because "what
works" is a very large range of things - and it changes over time.
In Sparta, what worked best was to leave unwanted babies naked out on
the mountains to be torn up alive by the wolves or perish from
exposure. If they survived 24 hours, they were usually picked up again
as having been proved worthy of life under the extremely harsh
conditions reigning in Sparta then.
In essence, at that time, doing those things, which under our morals
would be wrong, possibly even "evil", was the best way for them to
survive. If they didn't do it, they would spend effort and food on
raising a child that would quite probably not be able to survive in
the harsh reality of the time.
Right now, we can afford to make sure nobody dies of exposure or
starvation, if we want to. They did not have that option.
> Sure, good and evil are stronger words than right and wrong. Evil is
> connotated with judgment moreso than wrong, but perhaps judgment is under
> rated.
Being judgmental has never necessarily been a bad thing in my book,
when warranted. Some of you may have noticed.
Jasper
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
188 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
|
|
|
|
