HIGHLA-L Digest - 6 Jul 2003 to 7 Jul 2003 - Special issue (#2003-140)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:11:09 -0400
There are 20 messages totalling 804 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Immortal moral choices (14)
2. jewels in the desert (3)
3. Highlander in the news
4. Fanfic & Morals (2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 22:09:23 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/6/2003 7:03:46 PM US 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?
>
it is inbuilt. part of the "blueprint" Of course if one doesn't believe
there *is* a blueprint, then no wonder this conversation can go nowhere.
Have used up my 7 posts for one day :)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 02:17:11 +0000
From: beccaelizabeth <r.day@netcom.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Sandy Fields wrote:
>
> 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. :-)
In which case its kinda pre-emptive self defense. Which is dodgy
because any given person might not particularly intend to kill you after all,
but if you attack them they change their mind pretty quick.
>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?
Yes but if you're aiming at being the last one you are basing your
actions on prophecy, on the idea that at some vague future point there
will be a last one. Instead of on the observable reality of people
right now trying to kill you. Gaining the Quickenings might help you
stop some of those killing people people but to get them you suggest you go join
them and that isnt a necessary thing for survival. You dont *have* to hunt to
stay alive, you just *must* either hide or defend yourself.
> >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.
Like Darius did? He 'put it off' for a rather long while, like a
thousand years. You could just keep on puttin it off and hey, there
goes another millenium, and you haven't killed anyone.
The Game will keep on happening without you but only because everyone
acts that way, not as some built in condition.
Way back when Methos was a horseman, the whole world lived in much the
same situation as Immortals- whatever they did, sooner or later some
warlord would come for them and kill them for power or profit. They
didnt (as far as I know) have a TCBOO prophecy, but everyone wanted to
be top of the heap anyway. Because of warlords, other warlords thought
that was the way the world was, so lets go be warlords and make everyone else
live with it. These days people dont act that way, because more people got
together and didnt play - they defended their patch, however large they'd
decided that patch was, and they didnt go killing for sport, they did things
like taxes and making people go be soldiers for a while and stuff. They got
together and built nations, and now the people who would have been petty
Horsemen style warlords are daft gang leaders instead and are dealt with by the
police.
Immortals could do the same thing. They could gather together in mutual
protection, or they could hide behind walls and let the rest of the
world deal with the bad people without them. If enough of them stopped
playing, no more Game. What stops them is..? TCBOO, if they believe
it, because that makes the Gathering inevitable so the Game is just
getting a head start on something that must happen. Or the Rules,
saying one on one and no teaming up. Which rule is only because only
one person can get the Quickening, and is what stops them from
functioning like social beings and forming groups to deal with the dumb
troublemakers.
They could change, but because they accept those things as truth (or
just dont trust each other, or whatever) they stay isolated and with the Game
going on. I know that in the series the reason for that is thats the set up,
but if they were real people I'd be vastly disapointed in their common sense by
now.
And you can team up without,technically, breaking the one on one rule.
Duncan does it with Amanda, saying he'll be next if she is killed, and
the Horsemen are a similar threat to any who opposes any one of them.
Without technically ganging up, just standing around to be next. So I
really dont know why more people dont do that.
Because it undoes the story is why.
>>and the existence of the prophecy does not make the game all
>>okay and the way things should be.
> What prophecy?
There Can Be Only One
it says something about the future, is a 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.
We live as though the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be.
Okay, wrong show, but even dealing with the world as it is you can keep
your mind fixed on how it should be. Just because something is that way doesnt
mean it should be, doesnt make it right, just means thats where you start.
>They don't have the luxury of worrying about how things
> should be. They are forced to deal with what *is*.
But they can try and change it.
>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.
The Messenger only failed because he was advocating doing it the dumb
way. Maybe he could fight back without carrying a sword, but the people he
converted couldnt, so they died. If they'd just carried a blunt weapon, or
fought but not killed, they could have kept going in a normal life.
>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.
But there already *was* a way for any Immortal that wanted to live
peacefully to do so- live on holy ground. And it was a way every
Immortal agreed on. If you dont want to do it that way you risk getting killed.
So the other Methos was being dumb.
Methos wasnt much for killing for quite a while. So did he find a way
to live in the world and not fight? Or did he hang out on Holy Ground
until he joined the Watchers? I think he had good enough intel and no
qualms about running, so he just didnt stick around to fight.
Like if cowards and lazy people ran the world there'd be no fighting.
Garfield theory- what if they declared a war and nobody showed up? :-)
>>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.
But because there is a reward for killing doesnt make murder right, or
most murderers would be in the right. Immortals do what seems to their
best advantage. Okay, practical, but not necessarily moral.
> 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.
Or lock him up in a cave or someplace run by monks forever and ever.
Like mortals put murderers in prison for life.
>>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.
Theirs is kill OR HIDE or be killed. Hiding seems like the more moral
option to me.
The problems arising when hiding on Holy Ground mea watching bastards
killing people, and knowing the mortal police cannot deal with it. If
the world knew about Immortals, they could make provisions to imprison
them properly. Because, as a race, they value their secrecy more highly than
they value mortal life or law, Immortals are left being the only ones that can
deal with their own kind, which makes sitting it out and watching the bastards
play rather dubious morally.
> 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?
One of the advantages of Immortality is a built in early warning system. You
dont get much warning, but it makes surprise a bit difficult.
If Duncan trusted the information that Immortal X was after his head, then he
could go challenge him. If the guy declined then he didnt want a fight after
all. But it wouldnt be self defence to hunt the guy, imho.
> >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.
but if it works in the real world when faced with the same situations then why
not in the HL universe?? honest puzzlement
beccaelizabeth
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4212/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 22:23:45 -0400
From: Becky Doland <becky@beckyjo.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
>
> > 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?
> >
>
> it is inbuilt. part of the "blueprint" Of course if one doesn't believe
> there *is* a blueprint, then no wonder this conversation can go nowhere.
> Have used up my 7 posts for one day :)
Blueprint? There's a blueprint? Well, if that were so, then we'd all be
alike now, wouldn't we? We'd all think the same, believe the same, we'd all
have the same morals, ethics, etc.....and y'all wouldn't be having this
conversation in the first place.
~ Becky
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 02:30:01 +0000
From: beccaelizabeth <r.day@netcom.co.uk>
Subject: jewels in the desert
>beccaelizabeth wrote:
>>People profiting by it or claiming ideas for their own credit when
>>they did not make them is not okay.
Sandy Fields wrote:
> So if no money or credit is involved in the fanfic, it's OK because
> the writer isn't usurping someone else's profit or credit. Do I have
>that right? If so, this takes me back to that example of Duncan and
>the dead immie's jewels in the desert. No one will be hurt if he just
>takes them, but to you it would be morally wrong. So what's the
>difference between no one being hurt with fanfic (OK in your eyes) and
>no one being hurt if Duncan takes the jewels (not OK in your eyes)?
For an action to be either moral or immoral it must have consequences in the
real world. Taking away those consequences is bad because you've undermined
someones choice (although it isnt that simple and I think I've jumped a logic
step, this bit isnt something I've figured properly yet so I'm applying the
principle to the situation right now). Taking away someones wealth takes away
the stuff they've gained by their choices, takes away the consequences. So
stealing bad. Now if the guy you're stealing from is dead it could be said that
their choices are all done with anyway so why not steal their stuff? I figure
the consequences of peoples choices echo on far longer than their actual life
does. So is still bad.
Even I am finding this logic shaky. sorry. I feel like its getting the right
answer from the wrong angle.
If it was okay to nick peoples stuff just because they are dead then murderers
would be able to keep stuff they earned by killing, and one of the laws is they
cant gain by their crime, even by writing about it and selling their story I
think. And that feels like a fair rule, to not profit by doing a bad thing.
Also people tend to be against grave robbing, and who does that hurt? Only dead
people.
Sorry, I'm still coming up with the answer that just taking the guys stuff is
wrong, but I'm not coming up with solid logic as to why.
If they were very old jewels belonging to a long dead person and you just found
them in the desert there would still be laws telling you what to do with them
and I'm pretty sure they say such items belong to the government who owns the
desert. But I'm not sure governments saying they own everything their geography
happens to cover is morally right if I had to prove it with logic, so *shrugs*
> Is it that your idea of morals is only strict when it comes to a
> fantasy universe (easy to be strict on non-existent beings), but a
> little more loose when it comes to real life (a bit more difficult
> when you have to actually live with the moral choices)?
It isnt that they are non existent or I have to live with the choices. The
difference is in the real world you rarely have accurate information concerning
all the variables. Fiction and hypotheticals tend to give you what you need to
make a decision or judgement. Real life just sort of happens and you have to
either make do and jump whichever way seems best on what data you have, or
beccaelizabeth
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4212/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 16:45:59 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Dawn--
> Morality
> is what it is and is not wavering. It is only the perception of the
people
> that make it look different to others.
I bet _you_ perceive this morality thing perfectly clearly, right? Handy
for you, tough for those others.
Dawn--
> Morality IS set
> in stone and IS a fundamental aspect of all humans that does NOT change
for
> different peoples.
Because YOU say so? Do you have anything at all to back that up?
Really, this & several other statements from you recently make me ask--Are
you 10 years old? If so, fine, that explains much. If not, why do you post
like it? This is a _discussion_ list--discuss any HL-related topic until
the cows come home. Dropping unsubstantiated fiats here & there like
unctious cow patties is NOT the same thing.
Nina (getting quote attributions correct is a plus; generally adhering to
the list's 5 posts per day rule probably gets almost anyone w/in shouting
distance of whatever heaven they imagine)
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 23:03:34 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/6/2003 9:46:55 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
mac.westie@verizon.net writes:
> this &several other statements from you recently make me ask--Are
> you 10 years old? .......This is a _discussion_ list--
>
So you accuse Dawn of being a ten year old and call that discussion? Oh that
*is* intelligent. Nina you have outdone yourself.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 23:10:02 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: jewels in the desert
At 10:30 PM 7/6/2003, beccaelizabeth wrote:
>For an action to be either moral or immoral it must have consequences in the
>real world.
There you go again... talking about the real world. I thought we were
talking about immortals making choices in the Highlander universe.
I've gone over my daily posting limit, plus it's my bedtime. So good night
all. :-)
-- Sandy (Life sure would be a lot simpler if we were all born with a
blueprint)(it would be quite boring too)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:20:03 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Dotiron--
> So you accuse Dawn of being a ten year old and call that discussion? Oh
that
> *is* intelligent. Nina you have outdone yourself.
Thanks, but I simply asked a question. In light of her recent--
"I'm sorry to hear that....... :( (I like being infectious about
somethings!"
among _several_ other statements, I think it is a reasonable question.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:25:36 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
John--
> I think my poistion on the fanfic can best be explained thus:
> I'm driving down a fairly empty Texas highway in my car. On the side of my
> car is a sign that says *Visit Texas Today! Home of the Dixie Chicks!*
I read the whole thing you did. Twice. And it made zero sense to me.
Maybe it was the Texas thing.
> It's all perspective.
Clarity of expression is also nice. Especially in certain professions.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:28:28 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Dotiron--
> morality doesn't change no matter what relativism teaches.
Does morality change when various authorities (religious, legal, or
whatever) change THEIR official views about what people are bound to do &
not do? There have been some rather profound changes in expected/required
conduct, even just during the past 100 years, whether you look at religions
or legal doctrines. How can that be, if morality is an absolute? Were they
wrong back then? Or are we wrong now? Where IS the answer to that written
for all to read?
Also, care to discuss Duncan's religious & moral upbringing, versus his
attitude toward religion & morality as we saw it by the end of the series?
Talk about change....
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 23:53:32 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
I said:
>If 50% of the world's population belong to Religion Y and declare that square dancing is immoral
> and the other 50% of the world's population belongs to Religion Z and declare that square dancing
> is the pathway to God.. .which action - square dancing or not square dancing - is moral? Explain.
Dotiran:
>nah. the subject matter doesn't fall under the subject of morality.
Nice avoidance of the question. It was a hypothetical....you know..a set of facts designed to elicit a clearer understanding of the point of debate.
Ok..let's make it a moral question.
If 50% of the world's population in Religion Y believes that sex outside of marriage is immoral and 50% of the population in Religion Z believes that sex outside of marriage is the pathway to God...which action -sex outside of marriage or no sex outside of marriage - is moral??? Explain.
Wendy (OBHLR: If Religion Y teaches that killing an Immortal is immoral and Religion Z teaches that killing an Immortal is the only way to heaven ....which action is truly immoral? Why?)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 23:56:26 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Liser says:
>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.
The question is not whether you, today, look back (or ahead) and say "Rape is wrong". Your life experience ( family, education, church, work, people you've met, books you've read, etc) have come together to make you believe that there never was and never will be any "excuse" for rape. I might well agree. That has no effect, however, on what the people living XXX number of years ago in some different part of the world might have believed just as fervently. *We* look back and say they were "wrong"..that's our prerogative as the one's who are currently setting the moral tone. *They*, however, were actually living the events and saw the issue differently. Their religion may have set different standards of morality than yours. Unless we want to say "their religion was wrong" (something I am unwilling to say about anyone else's religion) we have to accept that the morals of their time may have condoned or encouraged behavior that the morals of our time find abhorrent.
>I'm *still* having trouble reconciling Broze Age Methos and Adam
>Pierson, though. Talk about turning cultural relativism and morality
>on its ear...
Bronze Age Methos was behaving badly by his own Age's standards. I don't see why it is hard to reconcile the idea that a man might be a raping, pillaging bastard in 2000 BC and a mildly amusing lay-about in 2000 AD. He got over it. He grew up. He moved on with the times. I don't even see why it should be hard to like a man in 2000 AD who had been a very bad man in 2000BC. It was 4000 years ago. I don't want my actions of 30 years ago held against me<g> I can't imagine holding something that happened 4 millennia ago against someone.( Unless one was actually there.)
Wendy(The "Cassandra Clause")
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 00:17:55 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
> Morality is *not* set in stone and is *not* the same for everyone...
>never has been.
Dawn:
>That is where I strongly disagree with your whole argument. Morality IS
>set in stone and IS a fundamental aspect of all humans that does NOT change for
>different peoples.
If you are going to make these statements, you really do have to give us something more - like what these stoney morals are, where we can find them, and who decided they were stoney.
Don't hide behind "I can't say or I'll get kicked off the List" . Debbie is very fair and would not throw you off because you stated that your argument is based on a personal belief in jelly doughnuts. There is a difference between saying "I believe in an unwavering moral code as set down by Fergus The Unwashed' and saying " You must all bow down before Fergus the Unwashed or roast in the hell fires of Moosejaw".
I guess what I'm saying is ... if your assertion that there is One True Morality For All Time is based on your personal religious beliefs (Christian, Buddhist, Zoroastrain, Animist, Fergusonian, etc) then best to just say so and we can stop the debate now.
Wendy(OBHLR: Haggis)(OK..It's late and I'm outta here.)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 18:27:52 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
me before--
> >OK, but I need more information. Is this a cartoon based in the
Highlander
> fictional universe & using its characters w/o permission, or a cartoon
based
> in the Stargate fictional universe & using its characters w/o permission,
> etc.? Is she slashing characters who were always depicted by the creators
> as straight? And, how much is she selling this cartoon for?
John--
> Leah's carttons clearly falls under 'parody' and 'commentary'
Really? I'd be interested to see that tested. I think of parody as
something _more_ than using other people's characters to state one's
personal opinions. Part of the problem is that the examples you
mention--MAD magazine & professional cartoons--have a much broader scope,
which itself lends legitimacy & if nothing else minimizes the abuse of the
entity/ies stolen/borrowed from. MAD doesn't _just_ go after one or even a
few--any & everything is fair game.
But, fanfic "writers" or "artists" just grab from the same one, two or a few
TV shows over & over as tried & true basis for "their" work. Of course,
there's a very good & practical reason for that--how many people would
bother to read stories written by fans or buy calendars made up of Leah's
cartoons if the drawings featured unfamiliar characters? No, fanficers
clearly see the ready-made market for Duncan's brawny chest & Methos'
sardonic grin.
> You can of course hope that the owner
> pretends he doesn't see you playing in the sandbox because he likes you're
> havign fun - but he's not obliged to.
No, he isn't obliged to, & the arrangement you quite accurately describe is
patently ridiculous. How anyone could see it as reasonable or even
desirable remains a mystery.
Pat--
> Whose purpose is served by backing them into a corner and
> forcing them to take a public position? To what end, Nina?
I'm out of time & posts for the day, so see above.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 21:37:33 -0700
From: Pat Lawson <plawson@webleyweb.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Dotiran wrote:
>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?
>
>it is inbuilt. part of the "blueprint" Of course if one doesn't believe
>there *is* a blueprint, then no wonder this conversation can go nowhere.
>Have used up my 7 posts for one day :)
The blueprint? The blueprint for a human is their DNA. You're suggesting
what is & isn't moral is built into our DNA? That raises interesting
questions.
Survival of the species and procreation are built in. Does that mean
morality equals that which advances survival & reproduction?
If morality is built into our blueprint, who do we need to teach our
children? It would be instinctive, like grasping to keep from falling.
Pat
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 21:43:35 -0700
From: Pat Lawson <plawson@webleyweb.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
beccaelizabeth wrote:
>The problems arising when hiding on Holy Ground mea watching bastards
>killing people, and knowing the mortal police cannot deal with it.If the
>world
>knew about Immortals, they could make provisions to imprison
>them properly. Because, as a race, they value their secrecy more highly than
>they value mortal life or law, Immortals are left being the only ones that can
>deal with their own kind, which makes sitting it out and watching the bastards
>play rather dubious morally.
So Immortals are selfish for keeping their secret? I suppose it is selfish
to not want to be killed, persecuted, experimented on or imprisoned. It's
DANGEROUS to be different. It's especially dangerous to be different in a
way that mortals envy or fear. Remember Horton?
Pat
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 04:52:11 +0000
From: beccaelizabeth <r.day@netcom.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Pat Lawson wrote:
>
> beccaelizabeth wrote:
>
>>The problems arising when hiding on Holy Ground mea watching bastards
>>killing people, and knowing the mortal police cannot deal with it.If the
>>world knew about Immortals, they could make provisions to imprison
>>them properly. Because, as a race, they value their secrecy more highly than
>>they value mortal life or law, Immortals are left being the only ones that
>>can deal with their own kind, which makes sitting it out and watching the
>>bastards play rather dubious morally.
>
> So Immortals are selfish for keeping their secret? I suppose it is
>selfish to not want to be killed, persecuted, experimented on or
>imprisoned. It's DANGEROUS to be different. It's especially
>dangerous to be different in a way that mortals envy or fear.
> Remember Horton?
They are weighing the risk to Immortals from mortals against the risk to mortals
from Immortals and deciding that mortals are in less danger from Immortals than
Immortals are from mortals. Which sounds fair enough, but you could also call
it deciding Immortal safety is more important than mortal safety, which would be
selfish. I think which reason is more important would vary between individual
Immortals, but they apparently all decide the same thing- leave others at risk
to reduce the risk to themselves. Practical but not ideal.
Whether being selfish is morally wrong is a bit more of a debate.
beccaelizabeth
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4212/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 21:57:23 -0700
From: Pat Lawson <plawson@webleyweb.com>
Subject: Re: jewels in the desert
beccaelizabeth wrote:
>If they were very old jewels belonging to a long dead person and you just
>found
>them in the desert there would still be laws telling you what to do with them
>and I'm pretty sure they say such items belong to the government who owns the
>desert. But I'm not sure governments saying they own everything their
>geography
>happens to cover is morally right if I had to prove it with logic, so *shrugs*
It might be easier & clearer for you if forget about the law when
discussing morality. Legality and morality are two separate issues.
I'm not advocating anarchy. Just trying to clarify the issues.
Pat
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:05:10 EDT
From: Jezebel Davis <Jezebel615@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 07/06/2003 8:52:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jjswbt@earthlink.net writes:
> Weny said:
> >If 50% of the world's population belong to Religion Y and declare that
> square dancing is immoral
> > and the other 50% of the world's population belongs to Religion Z and
> declare that square dancing
> > is the pathway to God.. .which action - square dancing or not square
> dancing - is moral? Explain.
>
> Dotiran:
> >nah. the subject matter doesn't fall under the subject of morality.
>
Actually, if you are a devout, practicing, Southern Baptist, it does. Dancing
is immoral. However, my square dancing Southern Baptist neighbor *likes* to
square dance - so she goes after church every Wednesday evening. I questioned
what makes this different than any other dancing, she replied, "it just is".
So, her morals are a bit fluid - or they were not blueprinted, or hardwired into
her at birth. Or during alllll the many hours she spends in church every
week....hhmmmmmm
Jez
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 22:10:51 -0700
From: Pat Lawson <plawson@webleyweb.com>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
Nina wrote:
>Pat--
> > Whose purpose is served by backing them into a corner and
> > forcing them to take a public position? To what end, Nina?
>
>I'm out of time & posts for the day, so see above.
I did, and there was nothing above that addressed my question. You talked
about parody. You responded to John's "sandbox" analogy, sorta. You
didn't come close to addressing my question. Fortunately you can answer
tomorrow or the next time you're here. I look forward to it.
Pat
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 6 Jul 2003 to 7 Jul 2003 - Special issue (#2003-140)
*****************************************************************************