[exmarine]

However, simply because one places a low value on a specific person does not mean he can do whatever he pleases with that person -- especially if he expects to live in a social grouping. "Morals," when one comes right down to it, are simply ground rules which members of groups have agreed upon to limit conflict within the group and hence promote survival of the group.

You just keep digging yourself into a deeper hole. Did Stalin care about your "social grouping"? He grouped himself with other murderers who thought like he did. Ground rules have no moral force whatsoever - I have my own rules - I spit on yours, how can I be wrong? The survival of the group? Don't you see how absurd this is? Someone should have told Mao and Pol Pot that natural selection demands that they stop slaughtering people! You have now exposed yourself as a moral relativist - it was inevitable. You must know that you can't win this argument. Every time you post, you will be digging yourself a deeper hole.

[Junior]

You just keep digging yourself into a deeper hole. Did Stalin care about your "social grouping"?

He probably cared about his own social grouping (his immediate circle); I, on the other hand, place a very low value on Uncle Joe's life. And that is what it all boils down to -- value is arbitrary and what we assign it. You have not shown that it is objective in any way, shape or form. Hell, you have definite opinions about the worth of some people (you're always bringing up Stalin and Hitler, for instance). I won't ask what value you place upon me ;^)>