"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
> At 02:05 PM 2/25/01 EST, Mike wrote:
>>>>>
> You're joking, right? To assume oneself to be morally superior, and to
> declare that, because you claim moral superiority, that things you say are
> wrong for others to do, are ok for you to do is hypocracy, plain and simple.
> In my opinion, there is no greater sin than hypocracy.
>>>>>
> Its ironic that today's readings in the Catholic Church were about hypocricy
> (the famous "bean in your eye" passage.)
mote and beam - not sty or bean.
> Still, I am surprised by the cavalier attitude of your statements.
everyone is surprised by cavalier attitudes.
> Simple example:
> A Gang of 5 hoodlums takes a Metro Bus hostage, with 50 riders on board.
> They demand $100 million in ransom, and will kill one hostage every hour
> for the next 48 hours until they are paid.
hmmmm.... it sounds likely that they are 'bad people'. (assuming of
course that what we are told on the 6pm news is actually what is
going on.)
> The local SWAT team storms the Bus, and kills two of the captors.
was it possible to remove the riders from captivity without storming
the bus?
did they have an opportunity to capture the hoodlums without killing
them?
did the two captors who were killed die as a result of the SWAT team
storming the bus - or were they killed after capture?
> IMHO, the captor killing an individual is evil,
pretty darn near agreement on my part. (although i'm sure any
fiction reader can think of some bizarre exceptions.)
> and the member of the SWAT team killing the captor is morally justified.
in every case?
even if they could have stopped the event through non-violent means?
even if the SWAT team kills the persons after they are captured and
handcuffed?
> Thus, your opinions, as stated above, in my mind, are patently false.
gosh. however it remains that they are his opinions - however well
or poorly expressed they may be - and no amount of disbelieve on your
part will change that - no matter how well or poorly you describe
your test case. does it help advance the discussion if someone calls
your opinions 'patently false'?
> In fact, those who are morally superior are justified in doing things
> that others are not justified in doing, and are not hypocritical.
how can the same actions be 'justified' in one case, and 'not
justified' in another case?
in your example above you were presumably equating some thugs
killing someone who was not threatening them in any way with a SWAT
team, who as an unavoidable side effect of attempting to free those
unlawfully detained people, kill some thugs who are - by their own
admission and apparent behaviour - killing or threatening those
unlawfully detained people. those do not sound very 'morally similar'
to me, and i'm a fairly staunch pacifist.
now if you are comparing a SWAT team that kills it's disarmed
prisoners with the thugs that they kill then i think that that would
be a 'comparison of equals' - but i don't see how you can then decide
which is the 'morally superior'.
regards,
christopher
--
Christopher Gwyn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
