Subject:
|
Re: Genocide and terrorism (Was: SW <-> Russia conspiracy)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 May 1999 14:04:05 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
c576653@cclabs(saynotospam).missouri.edu
|
Viewed:
|
404 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> "Christopher L. Weeks" wrote:
> >
> > Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > >
> > > I personally am morally at least partly an Objectivist. I've spoken
> > > against being a keeper before here, do a search for altruism to find the
> > > posts. Being your brother's keeper means that you're obligated to help
> > > him no matter what his moral shortcomings. I just don't personally buy
> > > that obligation.
> >
> > I agree. How is that modified by your having committed to do so?
>
> Sorry, could you restate the question, not following you here.
Right, sorry. If you committ to be a keeper in some form, and then the
assumed ward reveals moral shortcomings, what's is your behavioral response?
> > What if you're on US business?
>
> Do you mean US government business? Or just business of a US firm? If
> the former and it was diplomatic, sure. We have to enforce the rule of
> law between nations, diplomatic immunity must not be messed with. There
> is no other legitimate government business so no.
I do mean US government business. What if it is as a soldier?
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
