home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky alt.pagan:13119 talk.religion.misc:21647
- Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!decwrl!pa.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!sltg04.ljo.dec.com!boylan
- From: boylan@sltg04.ljo.dec.com (Steve Boylan)
- Newsgroups: alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc
- Subject: Absolute Right and Wrong (was: Re: Tolerance of Others)
- Message-ID: <1992Nov19.201410.5720@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>
- Date: 19 Nov 92 20:14:10 GMT
- References: <2AF80F2A.22348@news.service.uci.edu> <ewright.721346941@convex.convex.com> <1992Nov16.061631.2706@netcom.com> <1992Nov18.214535.14730@tc.fluke.COM>
- Sender: usenet@nntpd.lkg.dec.com (USENET News System)
- Reply-To: boylan@ljohub.enet.dec.com (Steve Boylan)
- Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
- Lines: 64
-
-
- I hope that the following is able to serve as a basis for discussion,
- and not the trigger for another flame fest. While I singled out
- John's posting, that's only because he specifically mentioned the
- topic which triggered this. This is NOT a personal attack on John
- or on his beliefs!!
-
- In article <1992Nov18.214535.14730@tc.fluke.COM>, emery@tc.fluke.COM
- (John Emery) writes:
-
- > The point I would like to contribute to this discussion is that there
- > must be an underlying principle other than tolerance by which one is
- > judged. Tolerance is neutral. There are always things that each
- > individual is tolerant of and intolerant of. In other words, everyone
- > is both tolerant and intolerant. However, it is the underlying
- > principle of absolute right and wrong that is the issue. Finding and
- > upholding absolute truth I would think should be the measuring rod
- > by which something is tolerated or intolerated.
-
- What bothers me here is the idea that there is an "absolute truth", or
- "absolute right and wrong".
-
- Is there any such thing?
-
- At the risk of re-igniting a previous flame war, let me recall a
- discussion a few months back from alt.pagan - is killing another
- person wrong?
-
- The first item that comes to mind is the Biblical assertion, "Thou
- Shalt Not Kill". That seems to be a nice, simple, moral absolute,
- no?
-
- So what about the case where you are attacked by an armed assailant
- who is clearly out to kill you, but you get a brief chance to kill
- him instead. Is killing him wrong?
-
- How about if you discover an assailant attacking your family, and
- all you can do to stop him will kill him?
-
- Moving back closer to the subject that started this . . . Not to
- attack John personally (but I need an example here), the way his
- posting is worded, he implies that he is not tolerant of neo-Nazi
- behavior or serial killers. What, then, should we as members of
- society do with regards to neo-Nazi behavior? Announce that we will
- no longer tolerate these beliefs? Jail them? Beat them? Kill them?
-
- If you assert that there is an absolute right and wrong, is there a
- way to decide whether neo-Nazi behavior is either right or wrong?
- If such behavior is wrong, then shouldn't we protect society by
- removing the neo-Nazis from society? What would be the best way to
- remove such evil beings? Should we hang them, or burn them at the
- stake?
-
- There was, of course, a time in the not-so-distant-past when someone
- who espoused pagan beliefs or engaged in rituals now common among
- Wiccans would have been deemed to be in the "absolute wrong" category,
- and most likely hung.
-
- Is there an absolute truth? Is there an absolute right and wrong? If
- there is, how do we find it? Who decides?
-
- - - Steve
-
- boylan@ljohub.enet.dec.com
-