Wes Clark's view on abortion
- Thread starter $tinkle
- Start date
its like a little party in here. i think we totally hijacked a thread.
Keep going, it's a good read. I'm still interested and I've managed to not get involved.
Interesting...........if morals are subjective, then how do we "know" murder is bad, rape is bad, slavery is bad?
Oddly enough I came across this link this morning:
http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/Relativism.html
Some well constructed arguments. The author is a Christian but most of the arguments are still valid regardless of faith.
He also has a good piece on abortion on the same site.
Simple. Many laws are in place to protect people from others, not from themselves. So while we agree that murder is "wrong", we convict because it harms individuals and society as a whole in very objective B&W ways. Just like drinking alcohol is legal and driving drunk is illegal.
that is unbelievably broad and simplified regarding black slaves... actually it's just plain wrong. It's like claiming white people speak English. The cultural norms in African nations vary greatly, and varied even more so in imperial times. It IS an entire continent.
Some areas were matriarchal. Some were so masogynistic you'd want to throw up if it were described out loud. The majority is skewed towards the latter. You'll see similar variations in views on homosexuality.
Experience.
The same way we know capitalism is good. It has stood the test of time and is a benefit to society. Proof in practice.
If at some point for some reason, murder provides a net benefit to society and people are convinced of that, murder will cease to be a bad thing. See feudal Japan and their opinions on the value of life, murder and suicide for a close example.
I think we tend to put the cart before the horse.
We like to look at societies across the board, find commonalities and then say that the commonalities are 'universal morals,' or at least things that 99% of the human race sees as 'good.'
I'd argue that the commonalities we see aren't really good or bad, but instead, the very things that make society possible. NO societal structure, regardless of its morals, could allow murder or theft if it is to survive as a society. It's not a matter of 'good' or 'bad,' which are mental constructs, but a matter of simple utility.
Then again, 'murder' as we call it wasn't wrong or considered immoral in, say, feudal Japan, where a samurai could kill a non-samurai for any reason without fear of any penalty...or with the Spartan helots or even American slavery. hmmmmmm. Now we're getting into the power question again...
Anyhow, wasn't this thread about Wes Clark??
MD
We like to look at societies across the board, find commonalities and then say that the commonalities are 'universal morals,' or at least things that 99% of the human race sees as 'good.'
I'd argue that the commonalities we see aren't really good or bad, but instead, the very things that make society possible. NO societal structure, regardless of its morals, could allow murder or theft if it is to survive as a society. It's not a matter of 'good' or 'bad,' which are mental constructs, but a matter of simple utility.
Then again, 'murder' as we call it wasn't wrong or considered immoral in, say, feudal Japan, where a samurai could kill a non-samurai for any reason without fear of any penalty...or with the Spartan helots or even American slavery. hmmmmmm. Now we're getting into the power question again...
Anyhow, wasn't this thread about Wes Clark??
MD