That's a bunch of relativistic morality crap.
Relativistic? Certainly. Crap? It isn't for me to judge.
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.
I can appreciate that as your position, but that doesn't invalidate anyone else's position.
If this is your true position then their is no reason to try and reason with you because your frame of reference is totally unreasonable.
My "true position" is that there are no absolute morals, and that all frames of reference are equal.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 09:54:11PM -0800, Throbbing Monster Cock wrote:
If this is your true position then their is no reason to try and reason with you because your frame of reference is totally unreasonable.
My "true position" is that there are no absolute morals, and that all frames of reference are equal.
That's the morality of a sociopath, and not conducive to cohesive communities.
Jonathan
Jonathan Walther wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 09:54:11PM -0800, Throbbing Monster Cock wrote:
If this is your true position then their is no reason to try and reason with you because your frame of reference is totally unreasonable.
My "true position" is that there are no absolute morals, and that all frames of reference are equal.
That's the morality of a sociopath, and not conducive to cohesive communities.
Although I can agree that it is not conducive to cohesive communities, I disagree that it is necessarily sociopathic. It can be idealistic or naïve, or a reflection of despair in the manner of Ivan Karamazov.
Eclecticology
Jonathan Walther wrote:
TMC wrote:
My "true position" is that there are no absolute morals, and that all frames of reference are equal.
That's the morality of a sociopath, and not conducive to cohesive communities.
This reminds me of the (now thankfully rare) response to atheism that says that infidels can't have any ethical principles. Of course it's quite possible to derive ethical principles from a source other than religious beliefs about God's opinions. I manage to do this, for example, without difficulty.
Now you imply that if someone has *no* absolute ethical principles, then they're incapable of acting morally (that is, they're sociopathic). This is equally false; it's quite possible to act morally on a basis other than your own absolute ethical principles. I manage to do this too, as it happens, although I'm a weak example (I have ethical principles, as per the previous paragraph, but I often restrict my behaviour morally even when my ethical principles argue otherwise); I know some other people with no ethics whatsoever that provide better examples.
-- Toby
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org