HIGHLA-L Digest - 6 Jul 2003 (#2003-139)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Sun, 6 Jul 2003 22:00:01 -0400
There are 11 messages totalling 281 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Immortal moral choices (11)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 20:21:58 EDT
From: Dawn Lehman <USTADAWN@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/6/2003 7:38:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
gmate@rogers.com writes:
> Okay, my $0.02 since I can't resist jumping into this one:
>
Bravo; Very good Pros. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but very
intelligently and benevolently stated!
USTADAWN
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 20:26:19 EDT
From: Dawn Lehman <USTADAWN@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/6/2003 8:00:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
cgliser@earthlink.net writes:
> I'm *still* having trouble reconciling Broze Age Methos and Adam
> Pierson, though. Talk about turning cultural relativism and morality
> on its ear...
>
> Liser
>
You can say that again!!! :)
USTADAWN
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 20:29:51 EDT
From: Dawn Lehman <USTADAWN@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/6/2003 8:03:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,
diamonique@comcast.net writes:
> Then if what you say is true, who or what made the decision as to what is
> and is not moral for all human beings everywhere for all time?
>
> -- Sandy
>
You really don't want me to answer that. If I were to answer that then
someone, somewhere would accuse me of trying to impose my beliefs on people who
don't subscribe to my convictions and that is sooo what I am NOT trying to do
here.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 20:44:22 -0700
From: Gregory Mate <gmate@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Sandy:
>You just proved my point. If the laying down of swords is not agreed to
>and adhered to by *all* immortals, then they *all* will be drawn into the
>game at some time or another.
True, but that does not mean they are required to *stay* in the Game until
there is only one left. Maybe I misinterpreted what you stated. I thought
you felt that the idea of "There Can Be Only One" is unavoidable. I don't
believe that it is.
....Greg....
gmate@rogers.com
He Who Thinks That Kenny Might Be The One
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 20:50:40 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
I asked:
> > Then if what you say is true, who or what made the decision as to what is
> > and is not moral for all human beings everywhere for all time?
Dawn responded:
>You really don't want me to answer that. If I were to answer that
>thensomeone, somewhere would accuse me of trying to impose my beliefs on
>people who don't subscribe to my convictions and that is sooo what I am
>NOT trying to do here.
Then I take that to mean you are basing your arguments on your religious
beliefs... which is OK, but it only speaks to the current beliefs of your
specific religion. Not all religions have the same beliefs. And religious
doctrine changes over time just like everything else. What is right in
your religion now may not have been right in your religion hundreds or
thousands of years ago (if your religion even existed in those
times). Plus no religion sets the standard for "morals" for all human
beings for all times, cultures, societies, etc.
This discussion is not going to go anywhere because some of us are talking
logic, history, philosophy, etc., while others are talking religion. And
believe it or not, some people can be very religious and still recognize
the difference between a cultural, societal, philosophical, and/or
historical discussion and a religious one. This discussion isn't (or at
least it wasn't) about religion.
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 20:54:45 -0700
From: Gregory Mate <gmate@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Liser:
>I do not agree with Mme. Weezul (as she challenges John to essay
>questions) when it comes to the assumption that certain actions are
>acceptable according to the cultural mores of the times. Rape, for
>example, will ALWAYS be wrong in my book, no matter the time or
>place. There are, in my book, actions that aren't ever
>acceptable--though my list is probably shorter and greyer than most.
Exactly. That is where your ethics come into play. Had you lived in a
time and place where rape was socially acceptable (I can't think of any off
the top of my head, but we'll just assume for argument's sake that such a
time and place existed), and you would have found it wrong back then, it
doesn't change the fact that rape was morally right, but for you it was
ethically wrong. For society as a whole, it was fine. For you, it was wrong.
....Greg....
gmate@rogers.com
He Whose Hair Is Shorter Than Most But Not Greying Yet
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 20:56:44 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
At 11:44 PM 7/6/2003, Gregory Mate wrote:
>True, but that does not mean they are required to *stay* in the Game until
>there is only one left. Maybe I misinterpreted what you stated. I thought
>you felt that the idea of "There Can Be Only One" is unavoidable. I don't
>believe that it is.
Neither do I. But I believe that the immies believe that it's unavoidable,
thus there will always be at least one of them out there taking heads,
which means that none of them can ever truly lay down their swords.
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 18:02:02 -0700
From: Pat Lawson <plawson@webleyweb.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
John wrote:
>Isn't it the truth to say that there will always be some absolutes in the
>morality tables, some 'Commandment' like tomes that we'd all agree are
>essential. ie: "It's wrong to rape" etc.
Interesting question.
Speaking specifically to rape, they have been times & places where rape was
not only moral, it was promoted. Now that I think about it, the elders in
a small Afghanistan village recently ordered rape as a punishment for a
young woman.
Murder per se might have been universally frowned upon, but the definition
of murder was not universal. Some groups or classes were not consider
"people" and killing one of them was not considered murder. So again, we
don't have a universal moral statement.
Pat
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 21:31:51 -0700
From: Gregory Mate <gmate@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Dawn:
>You really don't want me to answer that. If I were to answer that then
>someone, somewhere would accuse me of trying to impose my beliefs on
>people who
>don't subscribe to my convictions and that is sooo what I am NOT trying to do
>here.
At the risk of bringing personal faith and religion beliefs into this topic
(bring on the flames: I'm wearing my gasoline shorts!) I think what you're
referring to and what others on this list are referring to are two
completely different subjects. Some people on this list (such as Jette and
Wendy) refer to "morals" which are determined by people. People
change. Societies change. The morals some people on this list (such as
yourself) refer to cannot possibly be determined by people because by your
definition these morals are immutable and therefore must be determined by
an entity/supreme being/God that is immutable over time.
The problem is that (a) not all people have the same faith or belief
system, and (b) faith by its very nature and its definition cannot be
proven. In addition, there are many people who have faith in an immutable
entity/supreme being/God but whose "morals" are vastly different. For
example, even though the Catholic and Protestant churches are both
Christian churches, both view the subject of divorce quite
differently. Unfortunately many such arguments are reduced to the level of
dogma.
This is one reason why I find Highlander so interesting (you knew I had to
segue back to the original list topic, didn't you?) is that it lets us
explore how a person's beliefs *could* change over time, if that person
lived long enough. Even Duncan's ideals changed and grew from the young
man in Scotland to the...well...young man today.
....Greg....
gmate@rogers.com
He Whose Belief System Occasionally Includes Solipsism
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 21:50:34 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/6/2003 6:20:09 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
jjswbt@earthlink.net writes:
> Again...you presuppose some "correct" action that we then choose or don't
> choose to take based on who and where and when we are.
No, it is actually based on who we are as humans
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 21:53:32 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/6/2003 6:25:05 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
jjswbt@earthlink.net writes:
> which action - square dancing or not square dancing - is moral? Explain
nah. the subject matter doesn't fall under the subject of morality.
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 6 Jul 2003 (#2003-139)
***********************************************