Replies

So for you morality is self-referential. It's immoral if it makes you uncomfortable directly or by doing so to those for whom you have affection. What, then, do you say to sadomasochists? They can turture others without violating your standard above.

Whom can they torture? If they are torturing those who have consented, then I have no business telling them to stop. If their torture directly affects unwilling participants then I have a vested interest in working against allowing it because I would prefer to live in a society where neither I nor those for whom I have affection becomes one of those unwilling participants.

Who are you to impose your morality on someone else?

I am me. What's your point?

What if I worship the Hindi god Kali and show my devotion through ritual killings?

What if I don't worship Kali and I don't want to be a ritual killing statistic? Further, I don't want people for whom I have affection to be killed ritualistically. As such, I have a vested interest in a system that prohibits ritualistic killings.

Your concept of morality cannot logically say mine is wrong. It also cannot logically say that Saddam's ethics is wrong.

From an absolute standpoint, no, it cannot. I never claimed as much. It's a matter of what I and others like me find "preferrable". I prefer a society that does not permit baseless murder, because it makes me more secure. I suspect that you would prefer such a setup as well. As such, I support a society that prohibits murder.

This view is commonly known, and rejected, as "might makes right." The powerful are above the law, because they can escape the penalties, but the rest must submit because the rulers of the state can make them.

I'm trying to figure out your point. I don't claim things are perfect or even that great, but are you suggesting that you have a system for defining ethics that I might find more agreeable? If so, I'd like to hear what it is and how you support its existence.

As for a system where people are above the law, well, the solution is to build into the framework a set of checks and balances to prevent anyone from ever being in a position of being "above the law" and being diligent in maintaining this system. Unfortunately, all too often people allow this system to be destroyed either through erosion or through sweet-talking charismatic meglomaniacs who convince people that the system needs to be "tweaked" in such a way that grants them increased authority.

The GOD of the Old and New Testaments claims that HE inhabits eternity, and that there is no God before HIM.

HE also explains that HE created all that there is.

An Entity that is capable of creating the universe around us, and has the power to propel a galaxy 200,000 miles per hour, probably doesn't expect us to put HIM in a neat little box that we can completely understand.

For HIS clear and simple message relating to this, try the Book of Job. You will get HIS perspective on your question.

P.S. The Book of Job, thought by most theologians to be the oldest Book of the Bible, has been acknowledged by literary scholars as one of the finest pieces of literature to date.

256 posted on 04/28/2003 5:10 PM PDT by bondserv