Subject:
|
Re: Frog
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Feb 1999 03:07:36 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest.*SayNoToSpam*net
|
Viewed:
|
1954 times
|
| |
|
|
I agree with Jesse here. Why are you so reluctant to acknowledge the
possibility of absolutes?
> >
> > Possibly, I guess my answer to that is simple, In questions of morality
> > there is no absolute truth. We may have grown up in a society with rules • so
> > strict (such as not eating people) that the seem like absolutes but I • assure
> > you they are not, Morals are defined purely by the society we live in, they
> > differ, they change and evolve.
>
> I think all societies have certain underlying morals that can be considered
> absolute given that all societies share them. Certain things have to be
> wrong or the society would fall apart. Most important among them might be
> the prohibition against killing someone in your in group. Out group, maybe,
> but not in group. Running around killing people aimlessly has to be wrong,
> or the society that thinks it right would go extinct.
>
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Frog
|
| John Neal wrote in message <36BFA673.677B4B70@u...st.net>... (...) For the same reason I'm reluctant to acknowledge the existance of Bright pink elepahnts, They don't exist! I don't deny knowledge of some absolutes, I'm pretty sure that 1+1=2 (...) (28 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Frog
|
| (...) Why are you and Jesse sure that there are? I don't know. I'm not sure that there are absolutes, though the argument for in-group "murder" being inherently bad being embedded in the human psyche is strong, so is the argument for all such things (...) (28 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Frog
|
| John Neal wrote in message <36BFA673.677B4B70@u...st.net>... (...) Because it is difficult to declare absolutes in a relative world; because it makes people uncomfortable to think that there is a right and a wrong, and thus that there is a (...) (28 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Frog
|
| Tim McSweeney wrote in message ... (...) so (...) assure (...) Well, I think a lot of people disagree with that on religious grounds, but since I don't want to get into that I'll disagree with it on logical/philosophical grounds: I think all (...) (28 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
115 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
|
|
|
|
