I said (retouching my words slightly):
> For members of this organization, it's an action of the
> highest morality to oppose legislation that would lessen
> bullying of homosexual children. For them, supporting the
> legislation is evil. But for others, it's the position of the
> Christian Coalition that's evil. So which side do we listen
> to in applying the Lucifer principle?
And Beth Benoit replied:
>
> Both. And a perfect example. The Lucifer Principle doesn't say one side is
> right or wrong, only that evil may be a survival mechanism. Since both
> sides want to survive, they will be fortified by evil methods to help them
> survive.
I guess I'm missing something. The argument that both sides will
be "fortified by evil methods" implies that evil can be
unambiguously identified. It can't. One side believes that action
A is evil and its converse B is moral. The other side believes
the reverse. They can't both be right. And as long as there
exists no universal agreement on what constitutes evil, then the
Lucifer Principle can't be applied.
It reminds me of the story of the rabbi mediating between two
quarreling men. He listens to the first, and pronounces "You're
right!". He then listens to the second, and declares "You're also
right!". His wife, listening, protests "They can't both be
right!". His reply: "You're right, too!".
-Stephen (who is beginning to suspect it would be evil to
continue this topic)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470
Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661
Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lennoxville, QC
J1M 1Z7
Canada Department web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
Check out TIPS listserv for teachers of psychology at:
http://www.frostburg.edu/dept/psyc/southerly/tips/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
