Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
Your response ignores my question. that's the definition of a Red Herring! The issue at hand is morality and it's source, not whether truth is relative.
Morality is a behavior pattern, nothing more, nothing less. But the exact nature of this behavior differs in several ways. - Most people today would agree that slavery is immoral. Yet the Bible condones slavery.
- The U.S. dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing hundreds of thousands of civilians including women and children. Arguably the ending of the war saved many more lives than that, i.e., the lesser of two evils. The morality of the attack was relative.
- Most Americans regard public nudity as immoral. But before the coming of the Christian missionaries the people of Hawaii and Tahiti thought it normal. Interesting the natives people of northern Canada were also nudists. They only wore cloths because it was cold. When the Christian missionaries built a church with a large furnace they were stunned when their congregation stripped down to nothing.
- Certain primitives do not allow a woman to get married until after she has proven her fertility by giving birth to a child. They do not see this as immoral.
- A man uses a rifle with a telescopic sight kill another human being. If the man is Lee Harvey Oswald and his target is John F. Kennedy this act is immoral. But if the man is a U.S. military trained sniper and his target is a member of the Taliban it's a different story.
Boxcar has ignored my question of whether it is immoral for a soldier to kill the enemy during wartime.
Would Jesus have burned his draft card?
Could the killing of a 14 year old African American male ever be considered a moral act? If so, under what circumstances? |
But, sir, it is implicitly understood that truth is supposedly the foundation to moral relativism, as it would be with any philosophy or worldview or ethical system. Is moral relativism absolutely
true or false? Now go back and read what I posted.
And have a nice day.
