by mosaik » 1/17/2003, 3:42 am
Narbus, you're crazy.
There is such a thing as absolute morality. A is A. Your perception has no bearing on whether or not a certain action you take is morally admisable.
Robbing the rich to feed the poor doesn't change the fact that it's still theft.
Murdering jews because you think they're bad for your nation doesn't change the fact that it's still murder.
dropping bombs on afghans because you think they're harboring terrorists doesn't change the fact that it's murder.
How you see things does not change their moral value. Simply saying "killing that man was not wrong in my book" does not absolve you of having to face the concequences.
how in holy fuck can you even argue shit like this?
you can call Chris a psycho all you want, but can i point out that it's you who feels that right and wrong are shaped by how you view things in "your own little world"?
Rights are moral principles defining a man's freedom of action in a social context.
Rights are inalienable -- they may not be morally infringed upon, i.e., a thief may rob you, but morally he is in the wrong, and you are in the right.
Rights are not guarantees to things, but only guarantees to freedom of action (right to liberty) -- and a guarantee to the results of those actions (right to property).
Your rights are derived from using your rational mind to think and act on those thoughts in pursuit of rational self interest. taking an action which renders mans mind useless goes against that same principle and therefore is a violation of the rights of any man whom you take that action against.
This is how mans values are derived. This is how we determine right and wrong.
Do you need another lecture or would you prefer to continue living in your republicrat world where you decide what's right and wrong, and goddamn these anarchists and their "logic" and "facts"!
one more thing: if there's no such thing as right and wrong, then how can what Christina does be classified as wrong?
