All very good points as usual. Gary D.
On 5/6/05, Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm short on time, in-between lessons, but want to tie > up a few of the multiple loose ends from my last post > - I'll get to actual replies if it rains (ooh, being > egotistical in assuming that there _are_ responses > required! <grin>). > > I was surprised to find that morality and ethics were > nearly interchangable according to my Oxford's > Unabridged (c. ~1996); 'ethics' was considered more > applicable in the context of professions, but each > word was used in defining the other. I kind of > thought that ethics was 'more' defined. That said, I > must agree with those who state that morality is > culturally-based, rather than an Absolute. The idea > that morality has evolved as larger and larger groups > are acknowledged to be People (family -> village/tribe > -> city-state/tribal confederation -> nation -> race > -> gender --> non-humans?) seems particularly apt. > > While I try to live my life as a 'moral and upright' > person, I do think that being trained as a physician > pushed me to look for more demonstrable reasons to do > - or not do - certain things. Of course I realize > that science itself is susceptible to trends, slanting > and even fads, but it's a little less corruptible than > "...because God told me this!" (Or maybe it just > really hacks me off to be told that somebody else has > The Whole Truth...<wryness>) > > Back to clarify my response to one of Gautam's points > (IIRC): so morality can be _a_ reason to do/not do, > but if it is _the_ reason, it needs to be "above > reproach" (I think Nick said something along that > line). Paying small attention to what motivates other > governments WRT what the US should do/not do is > presumptuously arrogant; OTOH, wanting the US to be > morally superior in all its actions is also arrogant, > maybe even more so? ...so I'm guilty of the latter. > > WRT Sudan (I know that was another thread, but I can't > find that post right now), allowing the killing to > continue is wrong; so B pushing the UN/others to take > action is good and necessary, because the US cannot do > it alone, given military resources stretched so thin. > > WRT Iraq, if Bush had stated that the US was morally > obliged to do something because of past US government > actions which helped Saddam stay in power/didn't get > rid of him sooner, I might actually have to agree with > that. > > As Dan said, doing nothing is an option, but it > requires you to acknowledge that you have at least a > partial responsibility for whatever ill results. It's > moot now, but before GWII began, I and others thought > that enforced inspections were a decent compromise > between 'sanctions as usual' and flat-out war; I said > something about 'the hammer of US troops hovering just > across the border' as proper incentive. At the time, > some said that 'keeping troops standing around in the > desert summer' was not viable; yet I note that US > troops have actively patrolled/fought through two > summers, with another fast approaching. > > Debbi > It's Not All-Or-Nothing Maru > _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
