Mav wrote:
TMC wrote:
>If it makes you feel any better, the gang
considers
>the intact windshields to be the "means of production"
>through which broken windshields are produced.
>Because the social class of "car owners" cannot use
>their ownership of these means of production to exert
>control over the gang, it is necessary for the gang to
>take "possession" of the windshields while they put
>they to the use of being smashed.
That's a bunch of relativistic morality crap. If
somebody goes to the effort
of building something or working their ass-off to pay for something it is
absolutely wrong for somebody else to destroy that. Basic morality 101.
Absolutely wrong? If you can't imagine situations where destroying
something that somebody built is morally justifiable,
then I think that you suffer from a lack of imagination.
Examples on request.
If this is your true position then there is no reason
to try and reason with
you because your frame of reference is totally unreasonable.
There is no lack of reason on TMC's part.
Logic alone isn't enough to allow you to conclude
that any particular ethical stance is correct;
you must start with some assumptions.
Perhaps there is no reason to try and reason with TMC
because he doesn't share any assumptions with you?
-- Toby