Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Of course values compete. Let's look at a much simler example than sexual indentity.
Presumably, we would be hard pressed to find someone who didn't agree that it is generally wrong to kill someone. Penske argued that killing is wrong in an absolute sense. And yet, both you and he are on record as supporting the war in Iraq.
How can killing be an absolute wrong when killing in war is acceptable? There are numerous other examples: self-defense, defense of others, abortion to save the life of the mother (or, conversely, prohibiting abortion to save the life of hte mother).
Does a universal moral code say that it is wrong to kill? How can the code deal with this simple paradox?
|
I never said killing was an absolute wrong. The only people that I know that have ever proposed something like this are pacifists and liberals - the same people that believe in moral relativism.
It is wrong to intentional kill innocent people. It is wrong to not kill someone if your choice is either killing them or letting them kill innocent people.
I think killing in certain circumstances is wrong, but in certain cirumstances is a moral imperative.
You are confusing absolute with simple, and are confusing relative with complex. The rules may be complex but they are absolute. Our legal system may getting more complicated all the time but it is not getting more relative. The laws in our legal system our absolute and not relative no matter how complicated they get.
When you say morals are relative you are saying that in certain circumstances it is OK to kill innocent people. Or that in some cutures it is OK to kill innocent people and not in others. Relative meams that morality can change with the circumstances. Absolute means that they do not.
Justs like our laws apply equally to all men and women all the time so does the universal moral code.
