> I won't argue with that. I'm sure that the right of > conquest was > considered natural many years ago. But, when that > right of conquest was > exercised in the Balkins, it was condemned as an > atrocity.
Perhaps because our definition of rape has changed, or more importantly, our perceptions of what rape IS has changed. > I don't actually believe we will find "the rape > gene". I was just trying > to streamline my point to accentuate a key feature. > Your more complicated > explanation still supports my original point: we > cannot reduce morality to > that which we have a natural predisposition to > do....as some have argued. And to do a little thread synthesis here, the discussions about Nazi Germany bear mentioning here as well. We had already talked about German coercion with regards to the Holocaust. The point is, that these Germans KNEW what they were doing was immoral, but chose to do it anyway (power and free will sometimes are not the best combinations). If they had thought kiling Jews was ethical there would have been real consequences to a refusal to participate. Damon. ===== ------------------------------------------------------------ Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: ------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
