----- Original Message ----- From: "David Hobby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 4:23 PM Subject: Re: Good and evil (was Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's "ThePassion ofthe Christ")
> > Sorry, maybe I jumped into this discussion without > knowing the background? I said that contentious issues are > seldom just black or white, and got a back a bunch of examples > where almost everyone agrees that things are wrong. (Where > most of those not agreeing are those that directly benefit!) > > I was thinking of the moral stand taking by a > DISINTERESTED party, since that would be more objective. There are also historical examples where mostly disinterested people have looked over atrocities. Partially by denying the facts. They were not totally disinterested, because they would have had to accept the consequences of their moral decision. An example of this was the lynchings in the US in the early 20th century. They would not have occured without the tacit approval of a lot of people. > > To me, they are separate. It's certainly possible > to condemn something on moral grounds, and not be able to > do much about it for practical reasons. But, there are also situations where one can do something about it, but an a personal cost. In those cases, people do tend to rationalize. > What is "moral laziness"? I believe in "physical > laziness", since that means that one is not prepared to make > a physical effort. Does moral laziness mean that one is not > prepared to make a moral effort? It seems to me that it takes > much more work to try to see both sides of a moral issue and > wrestle with it, than it takes to immediately jump on one side > or the other of it. So "moral laziness" should mean that one > makes snap judgements, without really working through the issues > involved? I don't think that is the point. I think that true moral relativism, which you don't seem to expouse, argues that its impossible to get at objective right and wrong, even after carefully considering the issues. For example, all one can say is that, within a given system (be it personal or community) X is right, and Y is wrong. You can see that used to justify totalitarianism because the idea of human rights is just part of Western Culture, and only exists for us. Other people have different, equally valid viewpoints. Gautam can correct me, but I think this is what he refers to as moral laziness. As far as quick judgements go, certain quick judgements can be moral lazyness. However, I do not consider it moral lazyness for me to condem genocide out of hand. > > Obviously bad. Find anyone who was not Hutu who > supported it. (This does not count standing by while it > happens.) I can find people who would say that it would be immoral to stop it. > Sure compromise is possible. Reconstruction WAS a compromise, where > racism was not stamped out as well as it should have been. : ) I think of it more as a failure. > > Genocide is evil. I don't see why, even though a number of people may > > support it, that the best thing to do is to compromise on the extent of > > acceptable genocide. > > Of course not. This is not a good example of what I was talking > about. Again, sorry if I barged in without following the context > you had built up. No apologizes are necessary. I was guessing that you were not really arguing for pure moral relativism. It appears that what you are really arguing for is an appreciation that none of us has a hold on the total truth when it comes to morality. That axiom seems more in line with what you've written than true relativism. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
