"Adam C. Lipscomb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Here's the problem I have with arguments about "Who is Evil", or, for that >matter, claims of "moral superiority": I think it boils down to two stances: either morals are relative or they're not. If they're not, one belief system is right and all of the others are wrong - tough noogies. If they're relative, then we're inserting an implicit "according to my beliefs" before we say anything about morality. The fact that for most of the past several centuries the average person had their moral beliefs dictated to them and were unlikely to run into anyone who disagreed keeps this implicit assertion from being explicitly stated and biases the word. Similar to "ethics". I had a FAQ which said "ethics are relative, not absolute" and someone complained. Note that I think someone can act amorally or unethically within their own system. For example, if I eat the last cookie I've behaved unethically in my personal system (it's the Canadial politeness meme at work, y'know); I can make the explicit decision that I'm going to ignore what I think is right for the cheap thrill of the cookie (must be living in the US). I just got back from snowboarding (first time, owch I'm sore) so I feel giddy. :) >I think that, before claims of moral superiority are bandied about, we >might >want to determine which moral standards are being used. > >Off the top of my head, here's some of my questions on the list of >behaviors >for nations: >(1) Are elections free and open to adult citizens of this nation? >Specifically, are the polls accessible, are the ballots clearly marked, is >a >reasonable effort made to ensure that citizens are allowed to vote without >undue pressure for the candidates of their choice? How would a representative democracy and a direct democracy judge each other? >(3) Is punishment for crimes humane and rational? Are the accused allowed >to mount a defense in court, are they afforded specific protections similar >to those covered in the US Constitution, and is the death penalty (if used) >applied fairly and rarely? Or a culture that disavows punishment entirely, requiring reparations and/or prevention? Just examples of where our high-and-mightyness could easily be seen as quaint, primitive and unsavory. >(4) Is David Hasselhoff regarded as a serious artist, and are his movies >and >television shows regarded as being of "good quality" by more than 10% of >the >population? Hey, don't you be dissin' the Knight Rider, or the K. to the I. to the T. to the T. will get Turbo Boost on yo' ass! Joshua _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
