HIGHLA-L Digest - 4 Jul 2003 to 5 Jul 2003 - Special issue (#2003-135)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Sat, 5 Jul 2003 14:15:26 -0400
There are 16 messages totalling 824 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Immortal finances (2)
2. Immortal moral choices (10)
3. Immortal morality
4. Combined stuff
5. failure delivery
6. Nemesis Game
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 08:24:57 +0000
From: beccaelizabeth <r.day@netcom.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Immortal finances
jjswbt@EARTHLINK.NET wrote:
>
> Recap:
>
> There are really two points of contention.
> 1) That people's situations are fixed from birth and advancement is
> difficult or impossible
See put like that I dont agree with me. Is difficult but not fixed or
impossible.
> 2) Living a long time does not mean one will get rich.
this part true.
>Moving on is a fact of life, not an earth-shattering experience.
It only gets that way due to repetition. And some people just arent good at
change, so it would stay pretty huge deal for a long time. Most people are
creatures of habit and like things to stay a lot the same. They go back to the
same places even when they shouldnt. Thats one way criminals get caught.
all that other stuff was true though.
sometimes I get a bright idea thats not so bright after all.
beccaelizabeth
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4212/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 08:46:51 +0000
From: beccaelizabeth <r.day@netcom.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Sandy Fields wrote:
>
> Sandy jumps in with both feet.
>
> At 04:46 PM 7/3/2003, beccaelizabeth wrote:
> >Yes but I dont actually see how any of that leads to thinking they
> >should like abandon morals. I mean they have to kill (or stay on holy
> >ground) in self defense as part of the game.
>
> Actually that's not quite right. They have to kill as part of the
> game. Self defense has nothing to do with it.
>Some of them *choose* to only kill in self defense,
>but there isn't any such rule. The only rule is
> that there can be only one in the end.
>Since illness won't kill them, the
> only way to get to "the end" is for them to kill each other,
>and it doesn't really matter (in the overall sense of the game)
>whether it's self defense or not.
What I meant was- if you wake up Immortal one day, you have to live with the
fact that other people play the Game and will try to kill you. Therefore your
options for survival are live on Holy Ground or kill them in self defence.
The existence of the game does not mean you have to play, and the existence of
the prophecy does not make the game all okay and the way things should be. Just
the way things are. Its pretty much not moral on its own to headhunt, I reckon.
Immortals do it, because Immortals have always done it, but the logic behind it
is pretty slim. Last one standing gets a reward, therefore its okay to fight?
Not really.
> >Killing in self defense is pretty
> >much mostly considered moral. If you have to. So why does the fact of their
> >Immortality lead to smart people acting immoral?
>
> Being smart has nothing to do with morality. Plus, I find it
> counter-productive to judge the actions of immortals by the "moral"
> rules of our society (or those of any individual in our society).
>It simply doesn't work. They may be currently walking around in our
>society (the human society), but the universe (the immortal society)
>they *really* live in is totally different from ours.
Not really. I think. The only difference is that while people *might* try to
kill us mortals, and we *might* be able to profit from the deaths of our peers,
Immortals *will* be hunted and *will* profit from each time they kill another of
their kind. That just makes certain choices necessary. not which thing they
choose, that they have to make the choice, when most people dont have to think
about it.
> "Morality" isn't carved in stone anyway. It's different depending on
> the region you live in, the times you live in, etc.
One problem here is that moral is used to mean two seperate things- currently
accepted behaviour, and the kind of moral and immoral that philosophers talk
about. That later sort is supposed to be built on logic and pretty much
objective. The other sort changes all the time. I have a philosophy definition
of moral (well, several that overlap) and I try and apply it to lots of
situations. A lot of people seem to think that their personal moral is the
objective kind, so they dont see that the word has two meanings. And other
people dont believe the philosophers are any more objective than anyone else,
which is fair enough I guess but when I look at the logical version of moral it
seems pretty different.
anyone that wants to see my rough version of logical moral, see
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4212/moral.html
its the version I made up so its not very good yet.
also reading it again theres bits I want to change, cos I wrote it years ago and
I've read a lot more since.
Moral choices are those made with free will, with a clear mind, based on good
information, having consequences in the real world.
If any of those things arent true then things can be amoral (like shooting stuff
in a video game) or just a mistake (like being given bad information and doing
stuff based on that) but wouldnt be morally wrong because they wouldnt be proper
choices.
Actions that are moral support the possibility of further moral actions for all
beings. Actions that are immoral undermine the possibility of moral choices in
the future, by taking away some of the things necessary for those choices. Like
killing people is immoral, it means they cant make any more choices ever. But
stopping them from killing you is moral because then you can make more choices
in the future.
This is still not a very solid way to phrase it but its sort of my working
definition.
Theres others by famous philosophers I could find if anyones interested.
>In a discussion about the finances of an HL immortal, logic and
>practicality will win over morality for me any day.
Many people seem to find this reasonable. I find it puzzling. *shrugs*
beccaelizabeth
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4212/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 09:30:40 +0000
From: beccaelizabeth <r.day@netcom.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Immortal morality
jjswbt@EARTHLINK.NET wrote:
> So now Immortals must be saints?
Well they dont have to be but life works better if you try to be. Buddhist
saints anyway, they can still be alive.
>No wonder they don't get rich in your scenarios. <EG>
I admit I have trouble seeing getting rich as a worthwhile end in itself, or
even just using your money to make yourself happy as something that would work.
Help all people, be happier.
I'm sort of very not rich myself. Strange...
> A hypothetical - Duncan kills another Immortal in the middle of the
> Gobi Desert. There isn't another person, mortal or Immortal, around
> for miles and miles. There is no evidence that this Immortal has
>family or friends - certainly none in the area. The Immortal carries
> no identification so there is no way for Duncan to trace any heirs -
> if such people even exist. He did carry a small knapsack which
>Duncan discovers is filled with jewels. The jewels carry no
>identifying marks.
>
> Duncan can:
>
> 1) Take the jewels.
> 2) Take the jewels and turn them in at the nearest police station 300 miles
away where the police will have zero chance of finding the "real" owners.
> 3) Take the jewels and use them for "good works"
> 4) Leave the jewels in the middle of the desert where sandstorms will soon
cover the remains forever.
>
> What does Duncan do under your definition of morality?
Even deserts belong to somebody and have laws to cover them, at least nowadays.
He probably should hand them in to the police. Personally I'd use the jewels
for good works, but thats because I dont actually trust governments or police.
I wouldnt think the jewels were mine, or that I had a right to them. I'd
probably give them to a temple to make up for having to kill someone, but thats
just me and religious, not strictly moral.
>>> I'm sorry but if you are going to insist that no Immortal do
>>>anything morally dubious to get by, they aren't going to get by.
>>
>>So it is impossible to live morally?
>>Interesting and depressing worldview there.
>
> I'm saying that you are defining "morality" in a terribly narrow and
> "mortal-centric" fashion. I'm saying that being Immortal in and of
> itself is morally dubious. I'm saying that asking Immortals to live
> 100% by the moral Rules of society (whatever society is at any given
> moment) defies logic.
Why? The one and only thing that happens to Immortals and does not happen to
mortals is that they die a lot. If you can figure out what is right for a
mortal in a given situation why would it be different for an Immortal?
The other thing they have is a weight of responsibility to their people to keep
the secret. Because the consequences of it being widely known are entirely
unpredictable, and likely to be grim, they hide the fact that they exist. Well
having a really big secret that affects lots of people is not unique to
Immortals, and you can factor that in to all your figuring, and still judge if
they are acting morally or not. They dont live outside the rules just because
they say so.
They might live outside *our* rules if they all had a different set of rules
they had agreed to live by, and one could argue that they do, but outside of no
killing on holy ground those 'rules' are more of guidelines and no one really
gets the option to agree or not, people just act like they're in the game.
>My belief is, however, that there are certain areas where almost all
> Immortals will have to agree if they are to move through the ages
>more or less undetected.
I agree, which is one reason I dont buy them staying undetected- I mean even if
smart people all agree, theres always stupid people.
I think they were detected a lot but they've been un-detected in the scientific
age because no one believes in demons anymore and things that cant be true
obviously arent. They'd end up in Fortean Times and no one would take people
seriously. If some serious scientist started to study him people would be all
oh what a shame, he used to be good but now he's gone crazy. Like with
antigravity or something.
Okay, the difference arguably being that you get repeatable experiments if
Immortals are real, but a lot of Fortean stuff is sort of repeatable just not
accepted.
Studying Immortals would be more like cryptozoology. Crypto-Immortal-ology?
study of hidden Immortals.
>I doubt there are very many Immortals who
>never change their their names on the grounds that it is immoral
not very many, but probably at least one.
>(I'm still trying to figure out why changing your name is, per se, >immoral)
I dont think it is. But it could be perceived as lying. Some people think
there is magic in names, and power. You claim a name that isnt yours and your
claiming a power that isnt yours too. Personally I'm of the opinion that is
part of the making it yours process. But I knew someone at school who was
vehemently opposed to acting because it was all telling lies (personally I think
its telling a different kind of truth, but she was really emphatic about
it)(also she was very christian in that odd way that is really selective with
the bible and thinks every word is literal truth, even the contradictory ones.
so she was quite difficult to discuss things with.) Calling yourself by other
names and pretending you were them was quite wrong in her view of the world.
confuses me, but made sense to her.
>Duncan doesn't seem to change his but I always believed that
>was more a convention of the writers to keep confusion to a minimum >when
writing flashbacks and such.
well yes, probably, but since the basic reason for everything in Highlander is
the writers did it its not a very fun reason, since it sort of ends the
discussion. we pretend he had reasons.
>The immorality comes from claiming to be able to do something you
> can't- not from changing the name on the diploma.
agreed, actually.
But if they issue their own diplomas then nobody has actually checked that they
can do what they say, recently.
(when was it Methos studied? Heidelberg, 15 something?)
> >If things arent right for mortals to do, why are they right for
> >Immortals? They arent, they're just what they do anyways. Doesnt make
> >it any more moral just because they have a Really Good Reason. Does it?
>
> Immortal chop heads off. The Rules of the Game do not specify that
> one has to have reason to do so. Some Immortals chose (note: it is a
> choice) not to headhunt but even Duncan acknowledges that headhunters
> are merely playing the Game. He chooses not play unless forced. If
>the whole basis of Immortal "culture" is based on the premeditated
>decapitation of other Immortals, can we seriously hold them to mortal
>morality?
Yes. Just because they do it doesnt make it right. (Being 'cultural' doesnt
make it right either. But I'm not sure Immortals meet the usual criteria for a
culture. I guess they do have stories, customs and laws that are uniquely their
own. I just tend to think of them as very strung out and individual, not a
group.)
>They have already been set outside that morality in a huge way.
The 'culture' sets itself up as ignoring the particular moral issue of if it is
wrong to kill.
Only actually it doesnt because that was pretty much what most of the series was
actually about. When it is right or wrong to kill. I dont think DM got it
right all the time, but raising the question was central.
>What you need to grant me <g> is that if *anyone* can overcome all the
> various roadblocks to financial success, it would be a being with the
> ability to live forever, come back from the dead, and retain a near
> perfect memory of all his past lives. An Immortal.
okay. if anyone then them.
less pessimisstic today. not got a cold any more :-)
beccaelizabeth
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4212/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 09:36:00 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
At 04:46 AM 7/5/2003, beccaelizabeth wrote:
>What I meant was- if you wake up Immortal one day, you have to live with
>the fact that other people play the Game and will try to kill
>you. Therefore your options for survival are live on Holy Ground or kill
>them in self defence.
Actually I have another option. I can choose to go out and kill as many
immies as I can. Be the aggressor instead of the defender. Sometime the
best defense is an offense. :-) Maybe I'm one of the immies who believes
that I will acquire the power/knowledge/etc. of any immies I kill; and what
better way to help my chances of being the last one than by accumulating a
lot of power very quickly?
>The existence of the game does not mean you have to play,
I disagree. You can put it off, get away from it for awhile as Duncan has
done; but eventually the game will come to you, and you'll have to play.
>and the existence of the prophecy does not make the game all okay and the
>way things should be.
What prophecy? And what do you mean by "the way things should be"? What
things? If you're talking about the killing, it has nothing to do with how
things should be... it's simply how it is, and *that's* what the immies
have to deal with. They don't have the luxury of worrying about how things
should be. They are forced to deal with what *is*. The episode about the
other Methos (I forgot the ep title) was a perfect example of that. There
may be a lot of them who would like to stop the fighting, lay down their
swords, and let all immies live peacefully. But it must be something
agreed to by *all* all them, or it won't work for *any* of them. And it's
impossible to get them all to agree, especially since no one knows how many
there are, who they are, or where they are.
>Just the way things are. Its pretty much not moral on its own to headhunt,
>I reckon. Immortals do it, because Immortals have always done it, but the
>logic behind it is pretty slim. Last one standing gets a reward,
>therefore its okay to fight? Not really.
Yes really. The last one standing gets something, therefore they fight to
be the last one.
Immortals are just like mortals in the sense that you will have good ones
and bad ones. Most human beings are peaceful law-abiding people who just
want to live decent lives. But there are some who want to rob, steal,
cheat, kill, etc. It's the same with immortals. I'm sure most of them
would rather live their lives in peace, but all it takes is one of them who
wants to be "the one"; and that will force the others to fight... or die.
>Not really. I think. The only difference is that while people *might* try to
>kill us mortals, and we *might* be able to profit from the deaths of our
>peers, Immortals *will* be hunted and *will* profit from each time they
>kill another of their kind.
I see that as a *huge* difference. Our lives do not revolve around a "kill
or be killed" existence. Theirs do. That makes everything different, IMO.
> > "Morality" isn't carved in stone anyway. It's different depending on
> > the region you live in, the times you live in, etc.
>
>One problem here is that moral is used to mean two seperate things- currently
>accepted behaviour, and the kind of moral and immoral that philosophers talk
>about.
The philosophers' morality boils down to "do unto others as you would have
them do unto you". They have many different wordy ways of saying it, but
that's what it boils down to. And while that would work very well in real
life, it can't work in the immie universe because that universe is built
around killing.
>Moral choices are those made with free will, with a clear mind, based on
>good information, having consequences in the real world.
Exactly! And since we're not talking about the real world, the morality
that you deem so important simply does not work here.
>If any of those things arent true then things can be amoral (like shooting
>stuff in a video game) or just a mistake (like being given bad information
>and doing stuff based on that) but wouldnt be morally wrong because they
>wouldnt be proper choices.
So... if Duncan had good information (maybe from Joe or Methos) that some
immie was in town hunting for him, would it be moral for Duncan to choose
to go after that immie, use the element of surprise, and kill him
first? It would be a choice that he made based on good information. Would
you consider that self defense? Or would you consider it immoral? Should
Duncan sit and wait for the guy to come after him and hope that he doesn't
get whacked from behind?
>Actions that are moral support the possibility of further moral actions
>for all
>beings.
Wow.
>Actions that are immoral undermine the possibility of moral choices in
>the future, by taking away some of the things necessary for those
>choices. Like killing people is immoral, it means they cant make any more
>choices ever. But stopping them from killing you is moral because then
>you can make more choices in the future.
Double wow.
>This is still not a very solid way to phrase it but its sort of my working
>definition.
OK. If it works for you, then fine. It works for me in the real world,
but not in the HL universe.
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 10:53:27 -0400
From: Ace!Miracle <ke731458@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu>
Subject: Re: Immortal finances
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003, Sandy Fields wrote:
> Sandy jumps in with both feet.
And Miracle follows...
> Being smart has nothing to do with morality. Plus, I find it
> counter-productive to judge the actions of immortals by the "moral" rules
> of our society (or those of any individual in our society). It simply
> doesn't work. They may be currently walking around in our society (the
> human society), but the universe (the immortal society) they *really* live
> in is totally different from ours.
I'm going to agree with Sandy (and Wendy) on this debate. Immortals are
not part of mortal society. They move within it, but are not part of it.
The rules of contemporary Western society say that you don't go out and
whack at people with swords. But unless an Immortal does hide on Holy
Ground, at some point s/he is going to have to whack at someone with a
sword--whether it's in self-defense or not.
I see the whole Game as the ultimate Darwinian exercise. You do anything
you can to survive. You may choose to go out and eliminate the "weaker"
Immortals. Or, you may use your wits and cunning to survive--which may
mean staying away from the Game as much as possible, which is what I
believe Duncan is doing. He will defend himmself, in order to survive, but
obviously his chances of survival are better if he stays away from
conflict.
> region you live in, the times you live in, etc. In a discussion about the
> finances of an HL immortal, logic and practicality will win over morality
> for me any day.
Ditto. Again--survival. Perhaps for years, Duncan felt bad about how he
was setting himself up economically (which we don't know how he did it,
but let me play devil's advocate for a moment.) But if that was what it
took to survive, then he knew he had to do it
--Miracle
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They say the biggest problem in the world is apathy. But really, who
cares about that?" --Jeremy Lloyd, Laugh-In
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Major Miracle: Time Lady, Jedi Knight, Occasional English Professor
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 08:06:00 -0700
From: FKMel <sgt_buck_frobisher@yahoo.com>
Subject: Combined stuff
Gotta combine the replies since I'm at the library
again. *mumbles about computer problems and stupid
machines*
Song of the Executioner: Interesting ep and I can't
wait to see how it plays out. *Dances around* Methos
alert! Whoohoo! I can't wait till Monday!!!! Yayyyyy!
Gotta watch Star Crossed later on today.
Anyone see the Mike's Hard Lemonade commercial they're
running? Every time I hear that guy say "tell him...Mi
Casa Es Su Casa" I laugh and wonder where Methos is.
I'll be around as much as possible just not every day
for a while.
Mel
=====
The trouble with immortality is that it tends to go on forever-Herb Cain
FK:NickNatPacker, Knight of the Cross,Knightie, Natpacker/Highlander:Duncan Flag-Waver/Due South Fan/Tracker Fan/Angel Fan/Port Charles Fan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 08:20:44 -0700
From: FKMel <sgt_buck_frobisher@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: failure delivery
I'm not sure who the listmom is but if she reads this,
could she please set me to either digest or nomail? I
just tried and found out that I've forgotten how. Itll
make it much easier to keep my box cleaned out while
I'm coming here. Thanks.
Mel
=====
The trouble with immortality is that it tends to go on forever-Herb Cain
FK:NickNatPacker, Knight of the Cross,Knightie, Natpacker/Highlander:Duncan Flag-Waver/Due South Fan/Tracker Fan/Angel Fan/Port Charles Fan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 08:28:13 -0700
From: FKMel <sgt_buck_frobisher@yahoo.com>
Subject: Nemesis Game
Well, I rented it and watched it.....kinda creepy and
he's definately NOT Duncan MacLeod. Trouble was, I
kept hearing a line in my head the entire
movie....from a movie called "The Running Man." "This
isn't a game....this is life!" Anyway, I don't mind a
bit of scruffiness but will take the black locks over
the blonde look. I had to laugh because my mom's first
comment when she saw him was the same thing..."I hate
him with blonde hair!" I dont know about hate, but
it's not my fave look.
Liked the shirtless scenes but do prefer those
rippling muscles without the tattoo.
Hm....Nemesis Game 2 anyone? It could be.....did kinda
seem possible the way it ended.
Mel
=====
The trouble with immortality is that it tends to go on forever-Herb Cain
FK:NickNatPacker, Knight of the Cross,Knightie, Natpacker/Highlander:Duncan Flag-Waver/Due South Fan/Tracker Fan/Angel Fan/Port Charles Fan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 12:28:50 EDT
From: Dawn Lehman <USTADAWN@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/5/2003 9:47:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
diamonique@comcast.net writes:
> One problem here is that moral is used to mean two seperate things-
> currently
> >accepted behaviour, and the kind of moral and immoral that philosophers
> talk
> >about.
I totally disagree with this statement. Moral behavior is NOT, IMHO,
"current acceptable behavior, but rather innate knowledge of what is right and wrong.
Everyone knows that taking a human life is wrong - those who do not "know"
this have a mental defect and they are exceptions to the rule and have to be
handled in a different manner. The statement "current acceptable behavior" is
like saying something is OK this season and might go out of style the next.
Moral actions never go out of style no matter how many people disagree with it.
USTADAWN
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 12:30:55 EDT
From: Dawn Lehman <USTADAWN@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/5/2003 9:47:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
diamonique@comcast.net writes:
> >Actions that are moral support the possibility of further moral actions
> >for all
> >beings
????? What ??????
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 12:39:50 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
At 12:28 PM 7/5/2003, Dawn Lehman wrote:
>In a message dated 7/5/2003 9:47:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>diamonique@comcast.net writes:
>
> > One problem here is that moral is used to mean two seperate things-
> > currently
> > >accepted behaviour, and the kind of moral and immoral that philosophers
> > talk
> > >about.
>
>I totally disagree with this statement.
So do I. And I didn't say it. That quote came from Beccalizabeth, not me.
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 12:41:39 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
At 12:30 PM 7/5/2003, Dawn Lehman wrote:
>In a message dated 7/5/2003 9:47:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>diamonique@comcast.net writes:
>
> > >Actions that are moral support the possibility of further moral actions
> > >for all
> > >beings
>
>????? What ??????
Again... I did not say that. Please attribute your quotes to the right
person. I don't want people to believe that this is my line of
thinking. It is not.
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 13:10:14 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
beccaelizabeth:
>> One problem here is that moral is used to mean two seperate things-
>> currentlyaccepted behaviour, and the kind of moral and immoral that philosophers
>> talk about.
Dawn:
>I totally disagree with this statement. Moral behavior is NOT, IMHO,
>"current acceptable behavior, but rather innate knowledge of what is right
>and wrong.
Innate? One is *born* with a set of morals? It's in the genes?
Wow.
> Everyone knows that taking a human life is wrong -
Yeah...and everyone once knew the world was flat<eg>
> those who do not "know" this have a mental defect and they are exceptions to the rule and have to
>be handled in a different manner.
If this knowledge of right and wrong is so innate, why do parents have to spend so much time teaching children not take each others toys, not to pull the cat's tail, not to smother the baby? If the knowledge is so universal...why do cultures on one side of the world differ so radically from cultures on the opposite side?
>The statement "current acceptable
>behavior" is like saying something is OK this season and might go out of style the next.
>Moral actions never go out of style no matter how many people disagree
>with it.
This statement is wrong in so many ways.
It was once perfectly "moral" to own slaves.
It was once perfectly "moral" to marry your cousin.
It was once perfectly "moral" to leave a deformed baby on a hillside to die.
It was once perfectly "moral" to kill yourself to protect the honor of your family.
It was once perfectly "moral" to stone a prostitute to death.
It was once perfectly "moral" to drive sick people out into the wilderness.
It was once perfectly "moral" to have older family member induct younger members into the "mysteries" of sex.
It was once perfectly "moral" to draw and quarter your enemy.
It was once perfectly "moral" to sail to a distant land and claim it for your king regardless of how many people already lived there.
It was once perfectly "moral" to set old people on ice flows to die.
Morals are set by societies. Different societies have different morals. The same society will have different morals depending on what era it is. There is no such thing as a "fixed" set of innate morals that all human being in all times have been born with. There just isn't.
It might give one a nice, cozy, superior feeling to think that one's morals are innate and correct while everyone else is either a mental defective or a moral degenerate but even a cursory examination of history will show that it just isn't true.
Wendy(I suspect that all the items listed above are *still* considered "moral" somewhere in the world today)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 19:01:11 +0100
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
> It was once perfectly "moral" to marry your cousin.
Still is.
Jette
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
"I don't care WHO started it - STOP IT NOW!!"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 19:06:49 +0100
From: "John Mosby (Home)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Legal too. Unless, as in my case, he has a moustache.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jette Goldie" <jette@BLUEYONDER.CO.UK>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: [HL] Immortal moral choices
> > It was once perfectly "moral" to marry your cousin.
>
>
> Still is.
>
> Jette
> jette@blueyonder.co.uk
>
> "I don't care WHO started it - STOP IT NOW!!"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 19:16:01 +0100
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
> > > It was once perfectly "moral" to marry your cousin.
> >
> >
> > Still is.
> >
> > Jette
> Legal too. Unless, as in my case, he has a moustache.
>
> John
>
Well, soon you may be able to "register your commitment"
publically and be declared "next of kin" ;-)
Jette
Never bet on Star Trek trivia if your opponent speaks Klingon.
- Ancient Kung Foole Proverb
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 4 Jul 2003 to 5 Jul 2003 - Special issue (#2003-135)
*****************************************************************************