Today's London bombing

[urf]

In light of the thread about morality, I'm wondering what the people
here think about the morality of these events.

Do the people who blow themselves and others up think that they
are acting morally (as in God's will)?

In an interview with Chris Mathews a few days ago the rev. Billy Graham
made a statement which is undeniably true and for me at least very
thought provoking.

"War does NOT increase the death toll."

He went on to add that every person killed would have died one day
anyway. We all die it's just a matter of where, when and how.

*Death is a matter of moving from one world into another* to paraphrase
his words.

[AllYou!]

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jmaze.35157$Cm6.21415@trndny02...

In light of the thread about morality, I'm wondering what the people here think about the morality of these events. Do the people who blow themselves and others up think that they are acting morally (as in God's will)?

I think they think they are, but this is what comes of misguided morals.

In an interview with Chris Mathews a few days ago the rev. Billy Graham made a statement which is undeniably true and for me at least very thought provoking. "War does NOT increase the death toll." He went on to add that every person killed would have died one day anyway. We all die it's just a matter of where, when and how. *Death is a matter of moving from one world into another* to paraphrase his words.

It always amazes me how we try to find these enlightened concepts from others as
though he's just come across the secret to the universe. Kind of like *you
can't change anyone*. So what was his point? Of what practical benefit is that
particular bit of observation? It sounds more like a Seinfeld moment than that
from a man of God.

[AllYou!]

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jmaze.35157$Cm6.21415@trndny02...

In light of the thread about morality, I'm wondering what the people here think about the morality of these events. Do the people who blow themselves and others up think that they are acting morally (as in God's will)?

I think they think they are, but this is what comes of misguided morals.

In an interview with Chris Mathews a few days ago the rev. Billy Graham made a statement which is undeniably true and for me at least very thought provoking. "War does NOT increase the death toll." He went on to add that every person killed would have died one day anyway. We all die it's just a matter of where, when and how. *Death is a matter of moving from one world into another* to paraphrase his words.

It always amazes me how we try to find these enlightened concepts from others as
though he's just come across the secret to the universe. Kind of like *you
can't change anyone*. So what was his point? Of what practical benefit is that
particular bit of observation? It sounds more like a Seinfeld moment than that
from a man of God.

[Tai]

urf wrote:

In light of the thread about morality, I'm wondering what the people here think about the morality of these events. Do the people who blow themselves and others up think that they are acting morally (as in God's will)?

The thought processes of people who use a God to justify their bad actions
are alien to me.

My husband's nephew is living in London at the moment - he's fine - but he's
been on my mind more than the stupid evil people who commit such acts.

In an interview with Chris Mathews a few days ago the rev. Billy Graham made a statement which is undeniably true and for me at least very thought provoking. "War does NOT increase the death toll." He went on to add that every person killed would have died one day anyway. We all die it's just a matter of where, when and how.

No kidding. Did he really say something as trite as that? Two somethings?

*Death is a matter of moving from one world into another* to paraphrase his words.

Death just means we stop.

Tai

[Tai]

urf wrote:

In light of the thread about morality, I'm wondering what the people here think about the morality of these events. Do the people who blow themselves and others up think that they are acting morally (as in God's will)?

The thought processes of people who use a God to justify their bad actions
are alien to me.

My husband's nephew is living in London at the moment - he's fine - but he's
been on my mind more than the stupid evil people who commit such acts.

In an interview with Chris Mathews a few days ago the rev. Billy Graham made a statement which is undeniably true and for me at least very thought provoking. "War does NOT increase the death toll." He went on to add that every person killed would have died one day anyway. We all die it's just a matter of where, when and how.

No kidding. Did he really say something as trite as that? Two somethings?

*Death is a matter of moving from one world into another* to paraphrase his words.

Death just means we stop.

Tai

[S.Taylor]

Graham is a moron. Using his logic, if all people were killed, we would
all be in heaven. How would he explain that nobody was remaining?


--------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 13:46:17 GMT, "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote:

"War does NOT increase the death toll."
He went on to add that every person killed would have died one dayanyway. We all die it's just a matter of where, when and how.
*Death is a matter of moving from one world into another* to paraphrasehis words.

[S.Taylor]

Graham is a moron. Using his logic, if all people were killed, we would
all be in heaven. How would he explain that nobody was remaining?


--------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 13:46:17 GMT, "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote:

"War does NOT increase the death toll."
He went on to add that every person killed would have died one dayanyway. We all die it's just a matter of where, when and how.
*Death is a matter of moving from one world into another* to paraphrasehis words.

[urf]

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:wJqdnSsRGrITrlDfRVn-2Q@conversent.net...

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jmaze.35157$Cm6.21415@trndny02...

I think they think they are, but this is what comes of misguided morals.

They are wrong and we are right in this case?

Do you think that they have the same perception of right or wrong?

Who gets to decide?

[urf]

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:wJqdnSsRGrITrlDfRVn-2Q@conversent.net...

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jmaze.35157$Cm6.21415@trndny02...

I think they think they are, but this is what comes of misguided morals.

They are wrong and we are right in this case?

Do you think that they have the same perception of right or wrong?

Who gets to decide?

[urf]

"Tai" <tainuiti@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3j4qv3FoalfnU1@individual.net...

urf wrote:

The thought processes of people who use a God to justify their bad actions are alien to me. My husband's nephew is living in London at the moment - he's fine - but he's been on my mind more than the stupid evil people who commit such acts.

No kidding. Did he really say something as trite as that? Two somethings?

Death just means we stop. Tai

We stop but not our DNA. According to an interesting theory proposed by
Richard Dawkins in his book "The Selfish Gene", "we" can be looked at as
a mere construction of our DNA to function as a carrier through time.

[urf]

"Tai" <tainuiti@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3j4qv3FoalfnU1@individual.net...

urf wrote:

The thought processes of people who use a God to justify their bad actions are alien to me. My husband's nephew is living in London at the moment - he's fine - but he's been on my mind more than the stupid evil people who commit such acts.

No kidding. Did he really say something as trite as that? Two somethings?

Death just means we stop. Tai

We stop but not our DNA. According to an interesting theory proposed by
Richard Dawkins in his book "The Selfish Gene", "we" can be looked at as
a mere construction of our DNA to function as a carrier through time.

[AllYou!]

"Tai" <tainuiti@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3j4qv3FoalfnU1@individual.net...

urf wrote:

The thought processes of people who use a God to justify their bad actions are alien to me. My husband's nephew is living in London at the moment - he's fine - but he's been on my mind more than the stupid evil people who commit such acts.

Is what they did right or wrong in your opinion and by your standard of
morality, and is your sense of morality in this case just geared to assuring
that this doesn't happen again, or is it inherently right or wrong?

[AllYou!]

"Tai" <tainuiti@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3j4qv3FoalfnU1@individual.net...

urf wrote:

The thought processes of people who use a God to justify their bad actions are alien to me. My husband's nephew is living in London at the moment - he's fine - but he's been on my mind more than the stupid evil people who commit such acts.

Is what they did right or wrong in your opinion and by your standard of
morality, and is your sense of morality in this case just geared to assuring
that this doesn't happen again, or is it inherently right or wrong?

[AllYou!]

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:72bze.6601$gD5.1206@trndny06...

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:wJqdnSsRGrITrlDfRVn-2Q@conversent.net...

They are wrong and we are right in this case?

Yes, absolutely.

Do you think that they have the same perception of right or wrong?

No, not even close.

Who gets to decide?

We do. By that reasoning, Hitler wasn't wrong either. To assign all actions
the same moral equivalence is bull****. No, there is no single arbiter of the
moral high-ground. In the end, all we have is ourselves. All we can hope for
is that the species will constantly evolve to a higher existence and sense of
sophistication, and the whole species will evolve in that direction only if most
of us force it to with each our own sense of morals. And to the extent that we
stop striving for the higher ground......to the extent that we simply succumb to
the *enlightened* view that morals are simply a personal choice and all are
equivalent, we will never evolve. There will be no difference between Hitler,
Stalin, Jesus, Mother Teresa, or Gandhi.

In my case, there is just as much a difference between these people as there is
between my morals and those who did the bombing. Killing innocents to make a
point is morally abhorrent to me, and I reject their sense of morals outright.

[AllYou!]

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:72bze.6601$gD5.1206@trndny06...

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:wJqdnSsRGrITrlDfRVn-2Q@conversent.net...

They are wrong and we are right in this case?

Yes, absolutely.

Do you think that they have the same perception of right or wrong?

No, not even close.

Who gets to decide?

We do. By that reasoning, Hitler wasn't wrong either. To assign all actions
the same moral equivalence is bull****. No, there is no single arbiter of the
moral high-ground. In the end, all we have is ourselves. All we can hope for
is that the species will constantly evolve to a higher existence and sense of
sophistication, and the whole species will evolve in that direction only if most
of us force it to with each our own sense of morals. And to the extent that we
stop striving for the higher ground......to the extent that we simply succumb to
the *enlightened* view that morals are simply a personal choice and all are
equivalent, we will never evolve. There will be no difference between Hitler,
Stalin, Jesus, Mother Teresa, or Gandhi.

In my case, there is just as much a difference between these people as there is
between my morals and those who did the bombing. Killing innocents to make a
point is morally abhorrent to me, and I reject their sense of morals outright.

[urf]

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:Vc2dnT3rlNRK3lDfRVn-tQ@conversent.net...

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:72bze.6601$gD5.1206@trndny06...

Yes, absolutely.

No, not even close.

We do. By that reasoning, Hitler wasn't wrong either.

If the outcome of WWII were different, if Germany and Japan had won
the war, wouldn't it be logical to assume that our view of morality would
be totally different right now?

Isn't it a fact that the history of the world and the moral standards are
written
by the winners of wars? The strongest win and set the rules.

Was it moral for European peoples to come to the western hemisphere and
claim
the land for themselves, clear out the native peoples and establish a
culture based
on rules they brought with them. In my opinion that was not a moral thing to
do but
governments do not act morally, instead they chose what is moral and what is
not.

Is it moral for you to eat well while others starve?

Can you claim to be moral while doing nothing to create equality among all
the
people of the world? Is there a proper amount of effort that you can expend
to
save people who are still alive from death from starvation and disease.

It is very easy to condemn the actions of crazy terrorists in the most
vehement
terms, but what have you done to save those who can be saved. Moreover,
is it your responsibility? If all we have is ourselves, then what is your
plan to save us?

Sorry for the rant, just some thoughts.

To assign all actions the same moral equivalence is bull****. No, there isno single arbiter of the moral high-ground. In the end, all we have isourselves. All we can hope for is that the species will constantly evolveto a higher existence and sense of sophistication, and the whole specieswill evolve in that direction only if most of us force it to with each ourown sense of morals. And to the extent that we stop striving for thehigher ground......to the extent that we simply succumb to the*enlightened* view that morals are simply a personal choice and all areequivalent, we will never evolve. There will be no difference betweenHitler, Stalin, Jesus, Mother Teresa, or Gandhi. In my case, there is just as much a difference between these people as there is between my morals and those who did the bombing. Killing innocents to make a point is morally abhorrent to me, and I reject their sense of morals outright.

[urf]

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:Vc2dnT3rlNRK3lDfRVn-tQ@conversent.net...

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:72bze.6601$gD5.1206@trndny06...

Yes, absolutely.

No, not even close.

We do. By that reasoning, Hitler wasn't wrong either.

If the outcome of WWII were different, if Germany and Japan had won
the war, wouldn't it be logical to assume that our view of morality would
be totally different right now?

Isn't it a fact that the history of the world and the moral standards are
written
by the winners of wars? The strongest win and set the rules.

Was it moral for European peoples to come to the western hemisphere and
claim
the land for themselves, clear out the native peoples and establish a
culture based
on rules they brought with them. In my opinion that was not a moral thing to
do but
governments do not act morally, instead they chose what is moral and what is
not.

Is it moral for you to eat well while others starve?

Can you claim to be moral while doing nothing to create equality among all
the
people of the world? Is there a proper amount of effort that you can expend
to
save people who are still alive from death from starvation and disease.

It is very easy to condemn the actions of crazy terrorists in the most
vehement
terms, but what have you done to save those who can be saved. Moreover,
is it your responsibility? If all we have is ourselves, then what is your
plan to save us?

Sorry for the rant, just some thoughts.

To assign all actions the same moral equivalence is bull****. No, there isno single arbiter of the moral high-ground. In the end, all we have isourselves. All we can hope for is that the species will constantly evolveto a higher existence and sense of sophistication, and the whole specieswill evolve in that direction only if most of us force it to with each ourown sense of morals. And to the extent that we stop striving for thehigher ground......to the extent that we simply succumb to the*enlightened* view that morals are simply a personal choice and all areequivalent, we will never evolve. There will be no difference betweenHitler, Stalin, Jesus, Mother Teresa, or Gandhi. In my case, there is just as much a difference between these people as there is between my morals and those who did the bombing. Killing innocents to make a point is morally abhorrent to me, and I reject their sense of morals outright.

[AllYou!]

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:1Vbze.8384$kM5.5623@trndny05...

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:Vc2dnT3rlNRK3lDfRVn-tQ@conversent.net...

If the outcome of WWII were different, if Germany and Japan had won the war, wouldn't it be logical to assume that our view of morality would be totally different right now?

Yes. We wouldn't have mush of a sense of it. So what? Are you trying to claim
that all morals are equivalent?

Isn't it a fact that the history of the world and the moral standards are written by the winners of wars? The strongest win and set the rules.

No.

Was it moral for European peoples to come to the western hemisphere and claim the land for themselves, clear out the native peoples and establish a culture based on rules they brought with them. In my opinion that was not a moral thing to do but governments do not act morally, instead they chose what is moral and what is not. Is it moral for you to eat well while others starve? Can you claim to be moral while doing nothing to create equality among all the people of the world? Is there a proper amount of effort that you can expend to save people who are still alive from death from starvation and disease. It is very easy to condemn the actions of crazy terrorists in the most vehement terms, but what have you done to save those who can be saved. Moreover, is it your responsibility? If all we have is ourselves, then what is your plan to save us? Sorry for the rant, just some thoughts.

Now my turn. You're whole rant seems to be founded upon the premise that
because we have not achieved perfection, there is no differentiation between the
morals of various cultures. I reject that claim. We may never achieve the kind
of perfection implied in your post, but we can strive to evolve in that
direction. And the only way we can do so is to continue to use reason and logic
to guide us in that endeavor.

Contrary to notions predominant among the *enlightened* among us, the human
species is generally capable of agreement on certain very high level principles
of morality. For instance, a sophisticated notion is one where we should all
strive to avoid doing others harm. Another might be that we should all strive
to allow others to do what they want to do. Still another is that we should
undertake to assist those who cannot provide for themselves Now let's just
take these three principles, although I'm sure there are others.

These inherently lead to conflict. For instance, in order to do what I want to
do, I may be avoiding doing anything for others, or I may be preventing others
from doing what they want to do. So we have conflict built into these
principles. How we resolve them is the key. We use reason and logic and apply
them to those principles in order to determine how we'll resolve the conflicts
which arise as a result of following them. In many cases, there is no perfect
methodology, but rather, only the best one, and even then there is disagreement
as to what that might be.

But despite the limitations of the human species, we strive for the highest
goals we can conceptualize. that endeavor then requires that we reject certain
actions which we find abhorrent. Fortunately, most people of reason, logic, and
sophistication find the murder on *innocents* as immoral. Fortunately, we
strive to stamp it out of our existence. That's not to say that the people
engaged in such immoral behavior don't have a moral argument. That's not to say
that they have not been abused. And that's not to claim that anyone is truly
ever totally innocent. But it is to say that how they reacted to their plight
was, in fact, immoral.

So in the end, all we have is ourselves and each other to stive to this
evolution to a higher morality, and we'll never evolve at all if we simply
accept all moralities as equal. See below.

To assign all actions the same moral equivalence is bull****. No, there is nosingle arbiter of the moral high-ground. In the end, all we have isourselves. All we can hope for is that the species will constantly evolve toa higher existence and sense of sophistication, and the whole species willevolve in that direction only if most of us force it to with each our ownsense of morals. And to the extent that we stop striving for the higherground......to the extent that we simply succumb to the *enlightened* viewthat morals are simply a personal choice and all are equivalent, we will neverevolve. There will be no difference between Hitler, Stalin, Jesus, MotherTeresa, or Gandhi. In my case, there is just as much a difference between these people as there is between my morals and those who did the bombing. Killing innocents to make a point is morally abhorrent to me, and I reject their sense of morals outright.

[AllYou!]

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:1Vbze.8384$kM5.5623@trndny05...

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:Vc2dnT3rlNRK3lDfRVn-tQ@conversent.net...

If the outcome of WWII were different, if Germany and Japan had won the war, wouldn't it be logical to assume that our view of morality would be totally different right now?

Yes. We wouldn't have mush of a sense of it. So what? Are you trying to claim
that all morals are equivalent?

Isn't it a fact that the history of the world and the moral standards are written by the winners of wars? The strongest win and set the rules.

No.

Was it moral for European peoples to come to the western hemisphere and claim the land for themselves, clear out the native peoples and establish a culture based on rules they brought with them. In my opinion that was not a moral thing to do but governments do not act morally, instead they chose what is moral and what is not. Is it moral for you to eat well while others starve? Can you claim to be moral while doing nothing to create equality among all the people of the world? Is there a proper amount of effort that you can expend to save people who are still alive from death from starvation and disease. It is very easy to condemn the actions of crazy terrorists in the most vehement terms, but what have you done to save those who can be saved. Moreover, is it your responsibility? If all we have is ourselves, then what is your plan to save us? Sorry for the rant, just some thoughts.

Now my turn. You're whole rant seems to be founded upon the premise that
because we have not achieved perfection, there is no differentiation between the
morals of various cultures. I reject that claim. We may never achieve the kind
of perfection implied in your post, but we can strive to evolve in that
direction. And the only way we can do so is to continue to use reason and logic
to guide us in that endeavor.

Contrary to notions predominant among the *enlightened* among us, the human
species is generally capable of agreement on certain very high level principles
of morality. For instance, a sophisticated notion is one where we should all
strive to avoid doing others harm. Another might be that we should all strive
to allow others to do what they want to do. Still another is that we should
undertake to assist those who cannot provide for themselves Now let's just
take these three principles, although I'm sure there are others.

These inherently lead to conflict. For instance, in order to do what I want to
do, I may be avoiding doing anything for others, or I may be preventing others
from doing what they want to do. So we have conflict built into these
principles. How we resolve them is the key. We use reason and logic and apply
them to those principles in order to determine how we'll resolve the conflicts
which arise as a result of following them. In many cases, there is no perfect
methodology, but rather, only the best one, and even then there is disagreement
as to what that might be.

But despite the limitations of the human species, we strive for the highest
goals we can conceptualize. that endeavor then requires that we reject certain
actions which we find abhorrent. Fortunately, most people of reason, logic, and
sophistication find the murder on *innocents* as immoral. Fortunately, we
strive to stamp it out of our existence. That's not to say that the people
engaged in such immoral behavior don't have a moral argument. That's not to say
that they have not been abused. And that's not to claim that anyone is truly
ever totally innocent. But it is to say that how they reacted to their plight
was, in fact, immoral.

So in the end, all we have is ourselves and each other to stive to this
evolution to a higher morality, and we'll never evolve at all if we simply
accept all moralities as equal. See below.

To assign all actions the same moral equivalence is bull****. No, there is nosingle arbiter of the moral high-ground. In the end, all we have isourselves. All we can hope for is that the species will constantly evolve toa higher existence and sense of sophistication, and the whole species willevolve in that direction only if most of us force it to with each our ownsense of morals. And to the extent that we stop striving for the higherground......to the extent that we simply succumb to the *enlightened* viewthat morals are simply a personal choice and all are equivalent, we will neverevolve. There will be no difference between Hitler, Stalin, Jesus, MotherTeresa, or Gandhi. In my case, there is just as much a difference between these people as there is between my morals and those who did the bombing. Killing innocents to make a point is morally abhorrent to me, and I reject their sense of morals outright.

[urf]

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:8rqdneO8L4g8zVDfRVn-jg@conversent.net...

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:1Vbze.8384$kM5.5623@trndny05...

Yes. We wouldn't have mush of a sense of it. So what? Are you trying to claim that all morals are equivalent?

No.

Before I respond to your other points (many I agree with) would you care to
expand
on this one.

Was it moral for European peoples to come to the western hemisphere and claim the land for themselves, clear out the native peoples and establish a culture based on rules they brought with them. In my opinion that was not a moral thing to do but governments do not act morally, instead they chose what is moral and what is not. Is it moral for you to eat well while others starve? Can you claim to be moral while doing nothing to create equality among all the people of the world? Is there a proper amount of effort that you can expend to save people who are still alive from death from starvation and disease. It is very easy to condemn the actions of crazy terrorists in the most vehement terms, but what have you done to save those who can be saved. Moreover, is it your responsibility? If all we have is ourselves, then what is your plan to save us? Sorry for the rant, just some thoughts. Now my turn. You're whole rant seems to be founded upon the premise that because we have not achieved perfection, there is no differentiation between the morals of various cultures. I reject that claim. We may never achieve the kind of perfection implied in your post, but we can strive to evolve in that direction. And the only way we can do so is to continue to use reason and logic to guide us in that endeavor. Contrary to notions predominant among the *enlightened* among us, the human species is generally capable of agreement on certain very high level principles of morality. For instance, a sophisticated notion is one where we should all strive to avoid doing others harm. Another might be that we should all strive to allow others to do what they want to do. Still another is that we should undertake to assist those who cannot provide for themselves Now let's just take these three principles, although I'm sure there are others. These inherently lead to conflict. For instance, in order to do what I want to do, I may be avoiding doing anything for others, or I may be preventing others from doing what they want to do. So we have conflict built into these principles. How we resolve them is the key. We use reason and logic and apply them to those principles in order to determine how we'll resolve the conflicts which arise as a result of following them. In many cases, there is no perfect methodology, but rather, only the best one, and even then there is disagreement as to what that might be. But despite the limitations of the human species, we strive for the highest goals we can conceptualize. that endeavor then requires that we reject certain actions which we find abhorrent. Fortunately, most people of reason, logic, and sophistication find the murder on *innocents* as immoral. Fortunately, we strive to stamp it out of our existence. That's not to say that the people engaged in such immoral behavior don't have a moral argument. That's not to say that they have not been abused. And that's not to claim that anyone is truly ever totally innocent. But it is to say that how they reacted to their plight was, in fact, immoral. So in the end, all we have is ourselves and each other to stive to this evolution to a higher morality, and we'll never evolve at all if we simply accept all moralities as equal. See below.

[urf]

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:8rqdneO8L4g8zVDfRVn-jg@conversent.net...

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:1Vbze.8384$kM5.5623@trndny05...

Yes. We wouldn't have mush of a sense of it. So what? Are you trying to claim that all morals are equivalent?

No.

Before I respond to your other points (many I agree with) would you care to
expand
on this one.

Was it moral for European peoples to come to the western hemisphere and claim the land for themselves, clear out the native peoples and establish a culture based on rules they brought with them. In my opinion that was not a moral thing to do but governments do not act morally, instead they chose what is moral and what is not. Is it moral for you to eat well while others starve? Can you claim to be moral while doing nothing to create equality among all the people of the world? Is there a proper amount of effort that you can expend to save people who are still alive from death from starvation and disease. It is very easy to condemn the actions of crazy terrorists in the most vehement terms, but what have you done to save those who can be saved. Moreover, is it your responsibility? If all we have is ourselves, then what is your plan to save us? Sorry for the rant, just some thoughts. Now my turn. You're whole rant seems to be founded upon the premise that because we have not achieved perfection, there is no differentiation between the morals of various cultures. I reject that claim. We may never achieve the kind of perfection implied in your post, but we can strive to evolve in that direction. And the only way we can do so is to continue to use reason and logic to guide us in that endeavor. Contrary to notions predominant among the *enlightened* among us, the human species is generally capable of agreement on certain very high level principles of morality. For instance, a sophisticated notion is one where we should all strive to avoid doing others harm. Another might be that we should all strive to allow others to do what they want to do. Still another is that we should undertake to assist those who cannot provide for themselves Now let's just take these three principles, although I'm sure there are others. These inherently lead to conflict. For instance, in order to do what I want to do, I may be avoiding doing anything for others, or I may be preventing others from doing what they want to do. So we have conflict built into these principles. How we resolve them is the key. We use reason and logic and apply them to those principles in order to determine how we'll resolve the conflicts which arise as a result of following them. In many cases, there is no perfect methodology, but rather, only the best one, and even then there is disagreement as to what that might be. But despite the limitations of the human species, we strive for the highest goals we can conceptualize. that endeavor then requires that we reject certain actions which we find abhorrent. Fortunately, most people of reason, logic, and sophistication find the murder on *innocents* as immoral. Fortunately, we strive to stamp it out of our existence. That's not to say that the people engaged in such immoral behavior don't have a moral argument. That's not to say that they have not been abused. And that's not to claim that anyone is truly ever totally innocent. But it is to say that how they reacted to their plight was, in fact, immoral. So in the end, all we have is ourselves and each other to stive to this evolution to a higher morality, and we'll never evolve at all if we simply accept all moralities as equal. See below.

[AllYou!]

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:EQcze.6616$gD5.933@trndny06...

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:8rqdneO8L4g8zVDfRVn-jg@conversent.net...

Before I respond to your other points (many I agree with) would you care to expand on this one.

The strongest societies may set the rules of conduct, but not necessarily of
morality. Man's indomitable spirit would eventually conquer the worst of all
regimes. It is our destiny to achieve a superior moral existence, not matter
how difficult the road or how amny temporary setbacks we encounter.

Was it moral for European peoples to come to the western hemisphere and claim the land for themselves, clear out the native peoples and establish a culture based on rules they brought with them. In my opinion that was not a moral thing to do but governments do not act morally, instead they chose what is moral and what is not. Is it moral for you to eat well while others starve? Can you claim to be moral while doing nothing to create equality among all the people of the world? Is there a proper amount of effort that you can expend to save people who are still alive from death from starvation and disease. It is very easy to condemn the actions of crazy terrorists in the most vehement terms, but what have you done to save those who can be saved. Moreover, is it your responsibility? If all we have is ourselves, then what is your plan to save us? Sorry for the rant, just some thoughts. Now my turn. You're whole rant seems to be founded upon the premise that because we have not achieved perfection, there is no differentiation between the morals of various cultures. I reject that claim. We may never achieve the kind of perfection implied in your post, but we can strive to evolve in that direction. And the only way we can do so is to continue to use reason and logic to guide us in that endeavor. Contrary to notions predominant among the *enlightened* among us, the human species is generally capable of agreement on certain very high level principles of morality. For instance, a sophisticated notion is one where we should all strive to avoid doing others harm. Another might be that we should all strive to allow others to do what they want to do. Still another is that we should undertake to assist those who cannot provide for themselves Now let's just take these three principles, although I'm sure there are others. These inherently lead to conflict. For instance, in order to do what I want to do, I may be avoiding doing anything for others, or I may be preventing others from doing what they want to do. So we have conflict built into these principles. How we resolve them is the key. We use reason and logic and apply them to those principles in order to determine how we'll resolve the conflicts which arise as a result of following them. In many cases, there is no perfect methodology, but rather, only the best one, and even then there is disagreement as to what that might be. But despite the limitations of the human species, we strive for the highest goals we can conceptualize. that endeavor then requires that we reject certain actions which we find abhorrent. Fortunately, most people of reason, logic, and sophistication find the murder on *innocents* as immoral. Fortunately, we strive to stamp it out of our existence. That's not to say that the people engaged in such immoral behavior don't have a moral argument. That's not to say that they have not been abused. And that's not to claim that anyone is truly ever totally innocent. But it is to say that how they reacted to their plight was, in fact, immoral. So in the end, all we have is ourselves and each other to stive to this evolution to a higher morality, and we'll never evolve at all if we simply accept all moralities as equal. See below.

[AllYou!]

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:EQcze.6616$gD5.933@trndny06...

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:8rqdneO8L4g8zVDfRVn-jg@conversent.net...

Before I respond to your other points (many I agree with) would you care to expand on this one.

The strongest societies may set the rules of conduct, but not necessarily of
morality. Man's indomitable spirit would eventually conquer the worst of all
regimes. It is our destiny to achieve a superior moral existence, not matter
how difficult the road or how amny temporary setbacks we encounter.

Was it moral for European peoples to come to the western hemisphere and claim the land for themselves, clear out the native peoples and establish a culture based on rules they brought with them. In my opinion that was not a moral thing to do but governments do not act morally, instead they chose what is moral and what is not. Is it moral for you to eat well while others starve? Can you claim to be moral while doing nothing to create equality among all the people of the world? Is there a proper amount of effort that you can expend to save people who are still alive from death from starvation and disease. It is very easy to condemn the actions of crazy terrorists in the most vehement terms, but what have you done to save those who can be saved. Moreover, is it your responsibility? If all we have is ourselves, then what is your plan to save us? Sorry for the rant, just some thoughts. Now my turn. You're whole rant seems to be founded upon the premise that because we have not achieved perfection, there is no differentiation between the morals of various cultures. I reject that claim. We may never achieve the kind of perfection implied in your post, but we can strive to evolve in that direction. And the only way we can do so is to continue to use reason and logic to guide us in that endeavor. Contrary to notions predominant among the *enlightened* among us, the human species is generally capable of agreement on certain very high level principles of morality. For instance, a sophisticated notion is one where we should all strive to avoid doing others harm. Another might be that we should all strive to allow others to do what they want to do. Still another is that we should undertake to assist those who cannot provide for themselves Now let's just take these three principles, although I'm sure there are others. These inherently lead to conflict. For instance, in order to do what I want to do, I may be avoiding doing anything for others, or I may be preventing others from doing what they want to do. So we have conflict built into these principles. How we resolve them is the key. We use reason and logic and apply them to those principles in order to determine how we'll resolve the conflicts which arise as a result of following them. In many cases, there is no perfect methodology, but rather, only the best one, and even then there is disagreement as to what that might be. But despite the limitations of the human species, we strive for the highest goals we can conceptualize. that endeavor then requires that we reject certain actions which we find abhorrent. Fortunately, most people of reason, logic, and sophistication find the murder on *innocents* as immoral. Fortunately, we strive to stamp it out of our existence. That's not to say that the people engaged in such immoral behavior don't have a moral argument. That's not to say that they have not been abused. And that's not to claim that anyone is truly ever totally innocent. But it is to say that how they reacted to their plight was, in fact, immoral. So in the end, all we have is ourselves and each other to stive to this evolution to a higher morality, and we'll never evolve at all if we simply accept all moralities as equal. See below.

[urf]

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:cMmdnYx7bYft-1DfRVn-jQ@conversent.net...

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:EQcze.6616$gD5.933@trndny06...

>> Yes, absolutely.

What do you suppose would make a man do such things?

>>> Do you think that they have the same perception of right or wrong?>>>> No, not even close.>>>>> Who gets to decide?>>>> We do. By that reasoning, Hitler wasn't wrong either.

By "we" you mean you and those who think as you do?

> If the outcome of WWII were different, if Germany and Japan had won> the war, wouldn't it be logical to assume that our view of morality> would> be totally different right now? Yes. We wouldn't have mush of a sense of it. So what? Are you trying to claim that all morals are equivalent?

Not exactly. Morals may be artificial and transient, they may also be the
necessary outgrowth
of the success of the human race. Insects have no morals but they will
probably
be here when humans are not, do you agree?

> Isn't it a fact that the history of the world and the moral standards> are written> by the winners of wars? The strongest win and set the rules. No. Before I respond to your other points (many I agree with) would you care to expand on this one. The strongest societies may set the rules of conduct, but not necessarily of morality. Man's indomitable spirit would eventually conquer the worst of all regimes. It is our destiny to achieve a superior moral existence, not matter how difficult the road or how amny temporary setbacks we encounter.

Well let's hope that *man's spirit" will conquer all. Do you think you could
further describe *man's spirit*? Is it possible that those terrorists that
we discussed
before have no spirit or is their spirit wrong too? I happen to agree that
we evolve into
higher beings just as you seem to. I am not quite sure why I believe that
but you seem quite
sure. I'd like to know why you feel that way, after all your observations
and mine may
concur but at their core, they are just "feelings". Feelings without facts,
unless you know
of some.

How do you *feel* about *good and evil*? Does one exist so that the other
may also
exist? Could *good* stand alone without a relative *bad* to measure it
against?

Unanswered

> Is it moral for you to eat well while others starve?

Unanswered

> Can you claim to be moral while doing nothing to create equality among> all the> people of the world?

Unanswered

> Is there a proper amount of effort that you can expend to> save people who are still alive from death from starvation and disease.

Unanswered

> It is very easy to condemn the actions of crazy terrorists in the most> vehement> terms, but what have you done to save those who can be saved. Moreover,> is it your responsibility?

Unanswered

> If all we have is ourselves, then what is your plan to save us?

Unanswered. In addition it occurs to me that those "terrorists" that blow
themselves up consider themselves, "ourselves" and are acting to change
the world to a way that they believe is "moral" according to their culture.
Don't forget, we are there, they are not here (militarily). I might, if the
circumstances were reversed give my life for my country. Even though it
meant
killing innocents.

Killing innocents is morally wrong isn't it? Of course our troops have
inadvertently
killed innocents haven't they? So the only distinction between good and evil
in this case
is intention.

I, if called upon to save my country from a foreign invader would never kill
an innocent
in that pursuit. But what if I could end the war and return my country to
independence
with a single act that would most definitely cause the death of many
innocents. Would I
do it? Would you? Of course we are talking about moral relativity here and I
wonder what
you think on this subject.

> Sorry for the rant, just some thoughts. Now my turn. You're whole rant seems to be founded upon the premise that because we have not achieved perfection, there is no differentiation between the morals of various cultures. I reject that claim. We may never achieve the kind of perfection implied in your post, but we can strive to evolve in that direction. And the only way we can do so is to continue to use reason and logic to guide us in that endeavor.

Please read the above paragraph and tell me what reasoning or logic applies?

Contrary to notions predominant among the *enlightened* among us, the human species is generally capable of agreement on certain very high level principles of morality.

This would explain why there has never been an era of peace in all of
recorded history.

For instance, a sophisticated notion is one where we should all strive toavoid doing others harm.

This is not what I was told during my tenure in the miltary. I was told that
my only
reason for being was to kill, when and who I was told to kill.

Another might be that we should all strive to allow others to do what they want to do. Still another is that we should undertake to assist those who cannot provide for themselves Now let's just take these three principles, although I'm sure there are others. These inherently lead to conflict. For instance, in order to do what I want to do, I may be avoiding doing anything for others, or I may be preventing others from doing what they want to do. So we have conflict built into these principles. How we resolve them is the key. We use reason and logic and apply them to those principles in order to determine how we'll resolve the conflicts which arise as a result of following them. In many cases, there is no perfect methodology, but rather, only the best one, and even then there is disagreement as to what that might be.

Agreed. We do what seems to be in our best interest at any given point in
time.
In Viet Nam it was in our interest to stop the Communist tide until it was
too costly
to continue. Then our interests changed. It seems our interests is like
morality,
it is relative.

But despite the limitations of the human species, we strive for the highest goals we can conceptualize. that endeavor then requires that we reject certain actions which we find abhorrent.

I could not agree more. The problem of course is the practical application
of that ideal.
There are very few universally accepted goals for the race which is not
comprised
of over 5 billion single individuals.

Fortunately, most people of reason, logic, and sophistication find themurder on *innocents* as immoral. Fortunately, we strive to stamp it outof our existence. That's not to say that the people engaged in suchimmoral behavior don't have a moral argument. That's not to say that theyhave not been abused. And that's not to claim that anyone is truly evertotally innocent. But it is to say that how they reacted to their plightwas, in fact, immoral.

Agreed, except as described in the dilema above.

So in the end, all we have is ourselves and each other to stive to this evolution to a higher morality, and we'll never evolve at all if we simply accept all moralities as equal. See below.

Again I agree with the note that "ourselves" is not very definitive.

>>To assign all actions the same moral equivalence is bull****. No,>>there is no single arbiter of the moral high-ground. In the end, all>>we have is ourselves. All we can hope for is that the species will>>constantly evolve to a higher existence and sense of sophistication,>>and the whole species will evolve in that direction only if most of us>>force it to with each our own sense of morals. And to the extent that>>we stop striving for the higher ground......to the extent that we>>simply succumb to the *enlightened* view that morals are simply a>>personal choice and all are equivalent, we will never evolve. There>>will be no difference between Hitler, Stalin, Jesus, Mother Teresa, or>>Gandhi.>>>> In my case, there is just as much a difference between these people as>> there is between my morals and those who did the bombing. Killing>> innocents to make a point is morally abhorrent to me, and I reject>> their sense of morals outright.>>

[urf]

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:cMmdnYx7bYft-1DfRVn-jQ@conversent.net...

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:EQcze.6616$gD5.933@trndny06...

>> Yes, absolutely.

What do you suppose would make a man do such things?

>>> Do you think that they have the same perception of right or wrong?>>>> No, not even close.>>>>> Who gets to decide?>>>> We do. By that reasoning, Hitler wasn't wrong either.

By "we" you mean you and those who think as you do?

> If the outcome of WWII were different, if Germany and Japan had won> the war, wouldn't it be logical to assume that our view of morality> would> be totally different right now? Yes. We wouldn't have mush of a sense of it. So what? Are you trying to claim that all morals are equivalent?

Not exactly. Morals may be artificial and transient, they may also be the
necessary outgrowth
of the success of the human race. Insects have no morals but they will
probably
be here when humans are not, do you agree?

> Isn't it a fact that the history of the world and the moral standards> are written> by the winners of wars? The strongest win and set the rules. No. Before I respond to your other points (many I agree with) would you care to expand on this one. The strongest societies may set the rules of conduct, but not necessarily of morality. Man's indomitable spirit would eventually conquer the worst of all regimes. It is our destiny to achieve a superior moral existence, not matter how difficult the road or how amny temporary setbacks we encounter.

Well let's hope that *man's spirit" will conquer all. Do you think you could
further describe *man's spirit*? Is it possible that those terrorists that
we discussed
before have no spirit or is their spirit wrong too? I happen to agree that
we evolve into
higher beings just as you seem to. I am not quite sure why I believe that
but you seem quite
sure. I'd like to know why you feel that way, after all your observations
and mine may
concur but at their core, they are just "feelings". Feelings without facts,
unless you know
of some.

How do you *feel* about *good and evil*? Does one exist so that the other
may also
exist? Could *good* stand alone without a relative *bad* to measure it
against?

Unanswered

> Is it moral for you to eat well while others starve?

Unanswered

> Can you claim to be moral while doing nothing to create equality among> all the> people of the world?

Unanswered

> Is there a proper amount of effort that you can expend to> save people who are still alive from death from starvation and disease.

Unanswered

> It is very easy to condemn the actions of crazy terrorists in the most> vehement> terms, but what have you done to save those who can be saved. Moreover,> is it your responsibility?

Unanswered

> If all we have is ourselves, then what is your plan to save us?

Unanswered. In addition it occurs to me that those "terrorists" that blow
themselves up consider themselves, "ourselves" and are acting to change
the world to a way that they believe is "moral" according to their culture.
Don't forget, we are there, they are not here (militarily). I might, if the
circumstances were reversed give my life for my country. Even though it
meant
killing innocents.

Killing innocents is morally wrong isn't it? Of course our troops have
inadvertently
killed innocents haven't they? So the only distinction between good and evil
in this case
is intention.

I, if called upon to save my country from a foreign invader would never kill
an innocent
in that pursuit. But what if I could end the war and return my country to
independence
with a single act that would most definitely cause the death of many
innocents. Would I
do it? Would you? Of course we are talking about moral relativity here and I
wonder what
you think on this subject.

> Sorry for the rant, just some thoughts. Now my turn. You're whole rant seems to be founded upon the premise that because we have not achieved perfection, there is no differentiation between the morals of various cultures. I reject that claim. We may never achieve the kind of perfection implied in your post, but we can strive to evolve in that direction. And the only way we can do so is to continue to use reason and logic to guide us in that endeavor.

Please read the above paragraph and tell me what reasoning or logic applies?

Contrary to notions predominant among the *enlightened* among us, the human species is generally capable of agreement on certain very high level principles of morality.

This would explain why there has never been an era of peace in all of
recorded history.

For instance, a sophisticated notion is one where we should all strive toavoid doing others harm.

This is not what I was told during my tenure in the miltary. I was told that
my only
reason for being was to kill, when and who I was told to kill.

Another might be that we should all strive to allow others to do what they want to do. Still another is that we should undertake to assist those who cannot provide for themselves Now let's just take these three principles, although I'm sure there are others. These inherently lead to conflict. For instance, in order to do what I want to do, I may be avoiding doing anything for others, or I may be preventing others from doing what they want to do. So we have conflict built into these principles. How we resolve them is the key. We use reason and logic and apply them to those principles in order to determine how we'll resolve the conflicts which arise as a result of following them. In many cases, there is no perfect methodology, but rather, only the best one, and even then there is disagreement as to what that might be.

Agreed. We do what seems to be in our best interest at any given point in
time.
In Viet Nam it was in our interest to stop the Communist tide until it was
too costly
to continue. Then our interests changed. It seems our interests is like
morality,
it is relative.

But despite the limitations of the human species, we strive for the highest goals we can conceptualize. that endeavor then requires that we reject certain actions which we find abhorrent.

I could not agree more. The problem of course is the practical application
of that ideal.
There are very few universally accepted goals for the race which is not
comprised
of over 5 billion single individuals.

Fortunately, most people of reason, logic, and sophistication find themurder on *innocents* as immoral. Fortunately, we strive to stamp it outof our existence. That's not to say that the people engaged in suchimmoral behavior don't have a moral argument. That's not to say that theyhave not been abused. And that's not to claim that anyone is truly evertotally innocent. But it is to say that how they reacted to their plightwas, in fact, immoral.

Agreed, except as described in the dilema above.

So in the end, all we have is ourselves and each other to stive to this evolution to a higher morality, and we'll never evolve at all if we simply accept all moralities as equal. See below.

Again I agree with the note that "ourselves" is not very definitive.

>>To assign all actions the same moral equivalence is bull****. No,>>there is no single arbiter of the moral high-ground. In the end, all>>we have is ourselves. All we can hope for is that the species will>>constantly evolve to a higher existence and sense of sophistication,>>and the whole species will evolve in that direction only if most of us>>force it to with each our own sense of morals. And to the extent that>>we stop striving for the higher ground......to the extent that we>>simply succumb to the *enlightened* view that morals are simply a>>personal choice and all are equivalent, we will never evolve. There>>will be no difference between Hitler, Stalin, Jesus, Mother Teresa, or>>Gandhi.>>>> In my case, there is just as much a difference between these people as>> there is between my morals and those who did the bombing. Killing>> innocents to make a point is morally abhorrent to me, and I reject>> their sense of morals outright.>>

[Dr Nancy's Sweetie]

Urf mentioned an interview with Billy Graham in which Rev Graham said:

"War does NOT increase the death toll." He went on to add that every person killed would have died one day anyway. We all die it's just a matter of where, when and how.

"Tai <tainuiti@gmail.com>" asked:

No kidding. Did he really say something as trite as that? Two somethings?

You may not fully understand the atmosphere in the United States. In
the USA, talking or thinking about death is avoided at nearly any cost.

HBO runs a program called "Six Feet Under", about a family that runs a
mortuary. The program is set in Los Angeles, because (in the words of
the program's creator), LA is the "world capital of the denial of
death".

I quoted once before CS Lewis's remark to the people who were so worried
about nuclear war:

Believe me, dear sir or madam, you and all whom you love were
already sentenced to death before the atomic bomb was invented;
and quite a high percentage of us were going to die in unpleasant
ways... It is perfectly ridiculous to go about whimpering and
drawing long faces because the scientists have added one more
chance of painful death to a world which already bristled with
such chances and in which death itself was not a chance but a
certainty... Let that bomb when it comes find us doing sensible
and human things -- praying, working, teaching, listening to music,
bathing the children, playing tennis, chatting to our friends over
a pint and a game of darts -- not huddled together like frightened
sheep and thinking about bombs. They may break our bodies (any
microbe can do that) but they need not dominate our minds.

And this wasn't even directed to 21st-century Americans, who have raised
denial of death to an art form.

It may sound sort of stupid to go on TV and tell people that they are
going to die, but in the USA it's actually a necessary reminder.

*

Also, I note a tendency of people to worry a lot about unusual stuff
that makes headlines, which is pointless. Something only makes
headlines if it doesn't happen very often -- and if it doesn't happen
very often, why worry about it?

The stuff to worry about is what *doesn't* make headlines. Dying in an
auto accident, for example. Here in the states, you're way more likely
to die in your car at your own hands than to die in an airplane at
someone else's. Also in the USA, more people die from tobacco EVERY
WEEK than the total deaths from the destruction of the WTC. If Osama
really wanted to kill Americans, he would sell cheap cigarettes.


Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
Nate Sr: You hang on to your pain like it means something. Like it's
worth something. Well, let me tell you - it's not worth sh*t.
Let it go! Infinite possibilities, and all he can do is whine.
David: Well, what am I supposed to do?
Nate Sr: What do you think? You can do *anything* you lucky bastard -
you're alive! What's a little pain compared to that?
David: It can't be that simple.
Nate Sr: What if it is?
-- from "Six Feet Under"

[Dr Nancy's Sweetie]

Urf mentioned an interview with Billy Graham in which Rev Graham said:

"War does NOT increase the death toll." He went on to add that every person killed would have died one day anyway. We all die it's just a matter of where, when and how.

"Tai <tainuiti@gmail.com>" asked:

No kidding. Did he really say something as trite as that? Two somethings?

You may not fully understand the atmosphere in the United States. In
the USA, talking or thinking about death is avoided at nearly any cost.

HBO runs a program called "Six Feet Under", about a family that runs a
mortuary. The program is set in Los Angeles, because (in the words of
the program's creator), LA is the "world capital of the denial of
death".

I quoted once before CS Lewis's remark to the people who were so worried
about nuclear war:

Believe me, dear sir or madam, you and all whom you love were
already sentenced to death before the atomic bomb was invented;
and quite a high percentage of us were going to die in unpleasant
ways... It is perfectly ridiculous to go about whimpering and
drawing long faces because the scientists have added one more
chance of painful death to a world which already bristled with
such chances and in which death itself was not a chance but a
certainty... Let that bomb when it comes find us doing sensible
and human things -- praying, working, teaching, listening to music,
bathing the children, playing tennis, chatting to our friends over
a pint and a game of darts -- not huddled together like frightened
sheep and thinking about bombs. They may break our bodies (any
microbe can do that) but they need not dominate our minds.

And this wasn't even directed to 21st-century Americans, who have raised
denial of death to an art form.

It may sound sort of stupid to go on TV and tell people that they are
going to die, but in the USA it's actually a necessary reminder.

*

Also, I note a tendency of people to worry a lot about unusual stuff
that makes headlines, which is pointless. Something only makes
headlines if it doesn't happen very often -- and if it doesn't happen
very often, why worry about it?

The stuff to worry about is what *doesn't* make headlines. Dying in an
auto accident, for example. Here in the states, you're way more likely
to die in your car at your own hands than to die in an airplane at
someone else's. Also in the USA, more people die from tobacco EVERY
WEEK than the total deaths from the destruction of the WTC. If Osama
really wanted to kill Americans, he would sell cheap cigarettes.


Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
Nate Sr: You hang on to your pain like it means something. Like it's
worth something. Well, let me tell you - it's not worth sh*t.
Let it go! Infinite possibilities, and all he can do is whine.
David: Well, what am I supposed to do?
Nate Sr: What do you think? You can do *anything* you lucky bastard -
you're alive! What's a little pain compared to that?
David: It can't be that simple.
Nate Sr: What if it is?
-- from "Six Feet Under"

[urf]

"Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote in message
news:dajvjh$3pn$1@pcls4.std.com...

Urf mentioned an interview with Billy Graham in which Rev Graham said:

"Tai <tainuiti@gmail.com>" asked:

You may not fully understand the atmosphere in the United States. In the USA, talking or thinking about death is avoided at nearly any cost. HBO runs a program called "Six Feet Under", about a family that runs a mortuary. The program is set in Los Angeles, because (in the words of the program's creator), LA is the "world capital of the denial of death". I quoted once before CS Lewis's remark to the people who were so worried about nuclear war: Believe me, dear sir or madam, you and all whom you love were already sentenced to death before the atomic bomb was invented; and quite a high percentage of us were going to die in unpleasant ways... It is perfectly ridiculous to go about whimpering and drawing long faces because the scientists have added one more chance of painful death to a world which already bristled with such chances and in which death itself was not a chance but a certainty... Let that bomb when it comes find us doing sensible and human things -- praying, working, teaching, listening to music, bathing the children, playing tennis, chatting to our friends over a pint and a game of darts -- not huddled together like frightened sheep and thinking about bombs. They may break our bodies (any microbe can do that) but they need not dominate our minds. And this wasn't even directed to 21st-century Americans, who have raised denial of death to an art form. It may sound sort of stupid to go on TV and tell people that they are going to die, but in the USA it's actually a necessary reminder. * Also, I note a tendency of people to worry a lot about unusual stuff that makes headlines, which is pointless. Something only makes headlines if it doesn't happen very often -- and if it doesn't happen very often, why worry about it? The stuff to worry about is what *doesn't* make headlines. Dying in an auto accident, for example. Here in the states, you're way more likely to die in your car at your own hands than to die in an airplane at someone else's. Also in the USA, more people die from tobacco EVERY WEEK than the total deaths from the destruction of the WTC. If Osama really wanted to kill Americans, he would sell cheap cigarettes. Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy Nate Sr: You hang on to your pain like it means something. Like it's worth something. Well, let me tell you - it's not worth sh*t. Let it go! Infinite possibilities, and all he can do is whine. David: Well, what am I supposed to do? Nate Sr: What do you think? You can do *anything* you lucky bastard - you're alive! What's a little pain compared to that? David: It can't be that simple. Nate Sr: What if it is? -- from "Six Feet Under"

That was in a recent show I just saw and I thought it a good quote too.

[urf]

"Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote in message
news:dajvjh$3pn$1@pcls4.std.com...

Urf mentioned an interview with Billy Graham in which Rev Graham said:

"Tai <tainuiti@gmail.com>" asked:

You may not fully understand the atmosphere in the United States. In the USA, talking or thinking about death is avoided at nearly any cost. HBO runs a program called "Six Feet Under", about a family that runs a mortuary. The program is set in Los Angeles, because (in the words of the program's creator), LA is the "world capital of the denial of death". I quoted once before CS Lewis's remark to the people who were so worried about nuclear war: Believe me, dear sir or madam, you and all whom you love were already sentenced to death before the atomic bomb was invented; and quite a high percentage of us were going to die in unpleasant ways... It is perfectly ridiculous to go about whimpering and drawing long faces because the scientists have added one more chance of painful death to a world which already bristled with such chances and in which death itself was not a chance but a certainty... Let that bomb when it comes find us doing sensible and human things -- praying, working, teaching, listening to music, bathing the children, playing tennis, chatting to our friends over a pint and a game of darts -- not huddled together like frightened sheep and thinking about bombs. They may break our bodies (any microbe can do that) but they need not dominate our minds. And this wasn't even directed to 21st-century Americans, who have raised denial of death to an art form. It may sound sort of stupid to go on TV and tell people that they are going to die, but in the USA it's actually a necessary reminder. * Also, I note a tendency of people to worry a lot about unusual stuff that makes headlines, which is pointless. Something only makes headlines if it doesn't happen very often -- and if it doesn't happen very often, why worry about it? The stuff to worry about is what *doesn't* make headlines. Dying in an auto accident, for example. Here in the states, you're way more likely to die in your car at your own hands than to die in an airplane at someone else's. Also in the USA, more people die from tobacco EVERY WEEK than the total deaths from the destruction of the WTC. If Osama really wanted to kill Americans, he would sell cheap cigarettes. Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy Nate Sr: You hang on to your pain like it means something. Like it's worth something. Well, let me tell you - it's not worth sh*t. Let it go! Infinite possibilities, and all he can do is whine. David: Well, what am I supposed to do? Nate Sr: What do you think? You can do *anything* you lucky bastard - you're alive! What's a little pain compared to that? David: It can't be that simple. Nate Sr: What if it is? -- from "Six Feet Under"

That was in a recent show I just saw and I thought it a good quote too.

[AllYou!]

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:5jfze.17117$rQ5.8834@trndny04...

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:cMmdnYx7bYft-1DfRVn-jQ@conversent.net...

What do you suppose would make a man do such things?

Lack of moral standards combined with intense hatred.

>>>> Do you think that they have the same perception of right or wrong?>>>>>> No, not even close.>>>>>>> Who gets to decide?>>>>>> We do. By that reasoning, Hitler wasn't wrong either. By "we" you mean you and those who think as you do?

If you read what I wrote, you'd know that I mean mankind.

Now answer my question.....do you think Hitler was immoral?

>> If the outcome of WWII were different, if Germany and Japan had won>> the war, wouldn't it be logical to assume that our view of morality would>> be totally different right now?>> Yes. We wouldn't have mush of a sense of it. So what? Are you trying to> claim that all morals are equivalent? Not exactly. Morals may be artificial and transient, they may also be the necessary outgrowth of the success of the human race. Insects have no morals but they will probably be here when humans are not, do you agree?

What does the logevity of insects got to do with anything? And you didn't
answer the question. Morals may be artificial and transient, they may also be
the necessary outgrowth of the success of the human race, but are they all
equivalent?

>> Isn't it a fact that the history of the world and the moral standards are>> written>> by the winners of wars? The strongest win and set the rules.>> No. Before I respond to your other points (many I agree with) would you care to expand on this one. The strongest societies may set the rules of conduct, but not necessarily of morality. Man's indomitable spirit would eventually conquer the worst of all regimes. It is our destiny to achieve a superior moral existence, not matter how difficult the road or how amny temporary setbacks we encounter. Well let's hope that *man's spirit" will conquer all. Do you think you could further describe *man's spirit*? Is it possible that those terrorists that we discussed before have no spirit or is their spirit wrong too?

I spoke of man's spirit, not mens' spirits. I mean that the collection of all
people over all of time has a spirit, and that spirit will lead to the higher
evolution of morality.

I happen to agree that we evolve into higher beings just as you seem to. I am not quite sure why I believe that but you seem quite sure. I'd like to know why you feel that way, after all your observations and mine may concur but at their core, they are just "feelings". Feelings without facts, unless you know of some.

Faith can't be proven. My interpretation of the history of man leads me to
believe what I wrote. Actions of people and societies that were taken for
granted in the past would hardly be tolerated by the world now, and this has
been generally true at any given point in history.

How do you *feel* about *good and evil*? Does one exist so that the other may also exist? Could *good* stand alone without a relative *bad* to measure it against?

Good and evil are concepts we apply to the scale of morality. Then opposite
ends of that scale are simply labeled as such. That scale will always be what
it is, and only the degree to which humans operate on that scale will change.

>> Was it moral for European peoples to come to the western hemisphere and>> claim>> the land for themselves, clear out the native peoples and establish a>> culture based>> on rules they brought with them. In my opinion that was not a moral thing>> to do but>> governments do not act morally, instead they chose what is moral and what>> is not. Unanswered

I answered in summary form below. The point you're trying to make with such
questions was answered. I have no interest in answering every such question
about every such event in history. Each could be a thesis in it's own right.

>> Is it moral for you to eat well while others starve? Unanswered

I answered in summary form below. The point you're trying to make with such
questions was answered. I have no interest in answering every such question
about every such situation. Each could be a thesis in it's own right.

>> Can you claim to be moral while doing nothing to create equality among all>> the>> people of the world? Unanswered

I answered in summary form below. The point you're trying to make with such
questions was answered. I have no interest in answering every such question
about every such situation. Each could be a thesis in it's own right.

>> Is there a proper amount of effort that you can expend to>> save people who are still alive from death from starvation and disease.

I answered in summary form below. The point you're trying to make with such
questions was answered. I have no interest in answering every such question
about every such situation. Each could be a thesis in it's own right.

>> It is very easy to condemn the actions of crazy terrorists in the most>> vehement>> terms, but what have you done to save those who can be saved. Moreover,>> is it your responsibility?

I answered in summary form below. The point you're trying to make with such
questions was answered. I have no interest in answering every such question
about every such situation. Each could be a thesis in it's own right.

>> If all we have is ourselves, then what is your plan to save us? Unanswered.

I did, but you seem to be hell bent upon asking in inordinate number in inane
questions each of which would require a essay to answer substantively, but I'll
summerize this one. I need have no plan to *save* us because I don't think we
need *saving*. Had you focussed on my responses, you'd know that my faith in
the human spirit will serve us well in the end. So what you you mean by save?

In addition it occurs to me that those "terrorists" that blow themselves up consider themselves, "ourselves" and are acting to change the world to a way that they believe is "moral" according to their culture.

I'm sure you do, and there's even a very small possibility that you're right.
But again, you never answered if you think that as long as personal morals are
sincere, that they're equivalent. IOW, from the prism of your morals, was that
terrorist just as moral as you? As Bush? As Gandhi? Is sincerity the only
test of morality to you?

Don't forget, we are there, they are not here (militarily).

We can be, they can't.

I might, if the circumstances were reversed give my life for my country. Even though it meant killing innocents.

Then I already have issues with your sense of morality.

Killing innocents is morally wrong isn't it? Of course our troops have inadvertently killed innocents haven't they? So the only distinction between good and evil in this case is intention.

You answered your own question. Our troops have done so inadvertently. They do
so purposefully just to make a point. There's no strategic objective in mind,
no persons to be stopped. the whole point is to kill and inflict pain for the
sake of it. What's more, they do so in a mistaken interpretation of their
religion.

I, if called upon to save my country from a foreign invader would never kill an innocent in that pursuit. But what if I could end the war and return my country to independence with a single act that would most definitely cause the death of many innocents. Would I do it?

Probably.

Would you?

It depends upon the the scale of what was required, but probably not. However,
that's not the issue with these people. Return to independence? What return?
What independence? Are you refereeing to Palestine? Do you really believe the
al Queda would stop in all of Israel were *returned* to the Palestinians?

Of course we are talking about moral relativity here and I wonder what you think on this subject.

I think every one of these situations must be considered based upon the totality
of the situation, and to ask overly simplistic hypothetical questions is to be
on a fools errand. However, in the case of the 9/11 terrorist, I see no moral
justification for their actions whatsoever.

>> Sorry for the rant, just some thoughts.>> Now my turn. You're whole rant seems to be founded upon the premise that> because we have not achieved perfection, there is no differentiation> between the morals of various cultures. I reject that claim. We may never> achieve the kind of perfection implied in your post, but we can strive to> evolve in that direction. And the only way we can do so is to continue to> use reason and logic to guide us in that endeavor. Please read the above paragraph and tell me what reasoning or logic applies?

Please read the rest of the post and you'll have your answer.

This would explain why there has never been an era of peace in all of recorded history.

No it doesn't. The reason for that is that we haven't yet figured out how to
put those principles into effect with perfection..

This is not what I was told during my tenure in the miltary. I was told that my only reason for being was to kill, when and who I was told to kill.

OK, I mistook you as a sincere poster. Obviously, that's not the case.

> Another might be that we should all strive to allow others to do what they> want to do. Still another is that we should undertake to assist those who> cannot provide for themselves Now let's just take these three principles,> although I'm sure there are others.>> These inherently lead to conflict. For instance, in order to do what I> want to do, I may be avoiding doing anything for others, or I may be> preventing others from doing what they want to do. So we have conflict> built into these principles. How we resolve them is the key. We use> reason and logic and apply them to those principles in order to determine> how we'll resolve the conflicts which arise as a result of following them.> In many cases, there is no perfect methodology, but rather, only the best> one, and even then there is disagreement as to what that might be. Agreed. We do what seems to be in our best interest at any given point in time. In Viet Nam it was in our interest to stop the Communist tide until it was too costly to continue. Then our interests changed. It seems our interests is like morality, it is relative.

I could not agree more. The problem of course is the practical application of that ideal. There are very few universally accepted goals for the race which is not comprised of over 5 billion single individuals.

Agreed, except as described in the dilema above.

And I guess you have no other answers except to throw up your hands and
pontificate as to the evils of man. Is that about it? We are all equally
moral, and equally evil? Tell me, if those terrorist are moral because they are
sincere in their cause, then were we moral WRT Viet Nam?

> So in the end, all we have is ourselves and each other to stive to this> evolution to a higher morality, and we'll never evolve at all if we simply> accept all moralities as equal. See below. Again I agree with the note that "ourselves" is not very definitive.

Then you obviously have reading comprehension skill issues. If you hadn't
parsed, you see that I meant mankind.

>>>To assign all actions the same moral equivalence is bull****. No, there>>>is no single arbiter of the moral high-ground. In the end, all we have is>>>ourselves. All we can hope for is that the species will constantly evolve>>>to a higher existence and sense of sophistication, and the whole species>>>will evolve in that direction only if most of us force it to with each our>>>own sense of morals. And to the extent that we stop striving for the>>>higher ground......to the extent that we simply succumb to the>>>*enlightened* view that morals are simply a personal choice and all are>>>equivalent, we will never evolve. There will be no difference between>>>Hitler, Stalin, Jesus, Mother Teresa, or Gandhi.>>>>>> In my case, there is just as much a difference between these people as>>> there is between my morals and those who did the bombing. Killing>>> innocents to make a point is morally abhorrent to me, and I reject their>>> sense of morals outright.>>>>>