>Stephen Black wrote:
> 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.
Stephen's last sentence sums up the dialectic problem here. I didn't think
we resolved that evil is an absolute. Until we decide on that one, there's
probably no agreeing on anything else. I think that evil is in the eye of
the beholder. One person's "evil act" may be another person's "unfortunate
necessity."
Beth Benoit
University System of New Hampshire
