[lit-ideas] Re: Inner Moral Law
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 16:24:06 -0400
> [Original Message]
> From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 8/1/2005 2:32:19 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Inner Moral Law
>
> Andy Amago writes:
>
> "What works for millennia. The thing that works is the truth."
>
> Christianity has worked for two millennia. Judaism twice that.
> Hinduism even longer. On this criterion, all are true. Bush won two
> elections. His way works. Andy's doesn't. Which is true?
>
>
A.A. His way works to do what?
> Andy again:
>
> "How that thing works is the morality."
>
> Andy has it assbackwards. Morality is the principle. How it works out
> is the cultural bit. 'Do not harm the other' is the moral principle.
> Whether capital punishment fits this principle is the cultural part.
> That is, one can argue whether capital punishment is moral or not
> because there is a question whether it fits the principle. Does
> abortion fit the constitution or not? This is a question of whether it
> has a place within the moral framework. Again, Andy is terribly
> confused on this point.
>
>
A.A. Phil, so be it. I'm terribly confused and you're absolutely right.
Not a problem. I would, however, like to know what Bush has done so well.
Are you referring to bending over backwards to protect embryos while
blowing away 25,000 people and making lots and lots of room for al Qaeda?
He did that great, I agree. Regarding pharma, hey, buddy, they're all
yours.
Andy Amago
> Andy:
>
> "Historically human behavior has been consistently shockingly immoral
> and amoral. Would you agree with that?"
>
> I most emphatically do not agree. The reason why particular behaviour
> is shockingly immoral is because it stands in contrast to how the vast
> number of people behave. Andy is offended by a particular event and
> then assumes it is characteristic because Andy wants to be offended.
>
> This leads to Andy's constant bitching about the world. Why should
> Andy's opinion about pharma or religion be anything more than his
> opinion on what flavour of ice cream tastes the best? I assume that
> Andy does not think that his favourite flavour is the one everyone
> should eat and his least favourite the one everyone should ignore yet,
> for some as yet unknown reason, Andy thinks that his beliefs regarding
> pharma and religion should matter to others. Why does Andy think that
> his belief about pharma or religion is anything more than a personal
> preference?
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Phil Enns
> Toronto, ON
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
