thank you john. its a tough concept for so many, but there are no absolute morals. all morals are subjective to your society. simply put, remember, in a society of cannibals, it is immoral to NOT eat human flesh.
On Apr 5, 2005 1:14 PM, John Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have been a lurker for years now and have enjoyed the discussions > very much. I am an innumerate linguist, unprepared to comment on much > of the technical details of these discussions. I would, however, like > to emerge from my years of lurking to comment (of topic) on Jed's > statement: > > snip > "Throughout history, capitalists have sacrificed millions of lives and > their own futures time after time with stupid, self-destructive > behavior. This is human nature. Capitalism is the most efficient way to > allocate money and resources, but it does not promote morality or human > decency any more than communism does. It is an amoral economic system. > Engineering is the most efficient way to build machinery, and it is > equally amoral. It works just as well whether you build lifesaving > machinery or instruments to torture people with." > and snip > > The question of morality is an interesting one. English has three > terms: moral, immoral, amoral. Taken by themselves the words have a > positive, negative and neutral connotation. The referents to which the > words might attach, however, are another issue. What was immoral for > Stalin's Communism, might have been fine and dandy for Roosevelt's > democracy, and vice versa. The real question is if there is a basis for > determining morality independent of Stalin's communist culture or > Roosevelt's capitalist culture. There seems to be an overwhelming if > not universal sense, for example, that incest is neither moral, nor > amoral -- Egyptian and Incan practice of marriage (kings and queens) > not withstanding. In general, we humans have a hard time believing that > wanton murder for selfish and personal gain is acceptable behavior. > These may well be examples of behavior that the majority of the human > race might describe using "immoral" (whatever the term for > "unacceptable behavior"). > > However, since there is so much gray area in determining behavior that > is moral, immoral, or amoral, I have to believe that it is impossible > to persuade anyone with fixed beliefs to change. Therefore, I doubt > that this will persuade Jed: (a) It is harder to dismiss communism as > an economic system from communism an ideo-political system than it is > to separate capitalism as an economic system from capitalism as a > political system. It is fair to say, I believe, that capitalism, past > and present, encompasses more diversity of political systems than > communism ever did. (b) If we are to believe the The Black Book of > Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (by St�phane Courtois, Nicolas > Werth, Jean-Louis Pann�, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek ...), the > behavior engendered by Communism in the 20th Century was directly and > indirectly responsible for the deaths of from 80 to 100 million people. > I find such wanton, selfish killing immoral. I may be wrong, but I do > not believe that as many people who suffered in Jed's thrall of > capitalism in the same century were killed for the same wanton, selfish > reasons. One might argue that the flourishing of technology helped more > people under capitalism than it did under Communism. > > It is probably fair to say that what we believe is what we are willing > to act on. What we choose to believe really does matter to our future > and more importantly, to the future of others as well. The data seem to > argue that communism -- a belief system that prompted wanton, selfish > destruction of human beings -- is hardly amoral. > > -- "Monsieur l'abb�, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write" Voltaire
