I saw this picture of a child taken about 100 years ago, and started thinking that now that he has lived his life, we can know whether he led a good life, or a bad life, but if we had god-like powers of omniscience, we would know this from the start, and if we did, what choices would we make about his life?


Now as a child his potential is virtually unlimited, he could grow up to be a great scientist who finds a cure for cancer that rids the world of that terrible disease, but another child is born who will cause a fatal accident that sees them both die in their teens, and no cancer cure is then ever found.
So,  should we kill the other child first,  to prevent the tragic loss of this great mind, and it's subsequent discoveries?

Alternately, this child grows up to be a violent mass murderer, whose life brings great suffering and misery to many people, should we prevent the doctors from administering life saving medicine to him when he gets dangerously ill as a small child, and so dies before he grows up to commit evil acts?

Just how relative is morality?
Are any morals ever absloutely wrong, like killing for instance?

Is committing violence against many, more morally wrong, than committing violence against an individual?

In war time we see mass killings as necessary, and acceptable, and rationalise them as pro-active self defense, like the hiroshima bombing for an example, but just how do these sorts of actions stack up with religious teachings about morality?

Anyway, here is a photo of a kid now dead, would you be able to walk up and club his brains out if you knew he was going to be bad?

Would you kill someone else to prevent his death if you knew he was going to be a great man?

I do not know what I would choose, I guess being a god would be a pretty tough gig.

---

Quote:

............Now as a child his potential is virtually unlimited, he could grow up to be a great scientist who finds a cure for cancer that rids the world of that terrible disease, but another child is born who will cause a fatal accident that sees them both die in their teens, and no cancer cure is then ever found. So,  should we kill the other child first,  to prevent the tragic loss of this great mind, and it's subsequent discoveries? Alternately, this child grows up to be a violent mass murderer, whose life brings great suffering and misery to many people, should we prevent the doctors from administering life saving medicine to him when he gets dangerously ill as a small child, and so dies before he grows up to commit evil acts? ................

yes, being God would be a tough gig.
it'ld be a breeze if everyone behaved themselves , but that ain't the case.

I think if you are an atheist there can be no absolutes and therefore everythings is relative.

You are probably right pender, I know that I don't think in absolutes, and can usually imagine scenarios where different actions would have different consequences due to mitigating factors, but I think all of life is like that.

I do wonder about some religious teachings that set themselves up as absolutes, but in practice they are not.

Is the act of murder not absolutely an act of evil?

Yes, that was my original question, would it be wrong to murder this child pictured, if it prevented a thousand others from being murdered?

No?
What if prevented a million deaths?
No?

What about several million deaths?

Now we have a situation where some would say that not killing this child, if you knew by doing it you could prevent millions of unnecessary deaths, would be the immoral choice.

Given the power of clairvoyance, the pertinent question would not be "is it wrong to murder this child?" but "is it murder to kill this child?".

Given that this is Hitler as a child, the question is seductive. But of course this is a picture of a child called Adolf Hitler, not of 'Hitler'.  The supplementary question is: was the child Hitler free to become 'Hitler', or was he fated to become 'Hitler'? If the later, morality is not even a concept. Animals, not being free, have no moral questions. And you were fated to become who you are. Ask yourself - how did you become who you are?

Was Larkin right?

This Be The Verse

They bugger you up, your mum and dad.
 They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
 And add some extra, just for you.

But they were buggered up in their turn
 By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
 And half at one another's throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
 It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
 And don't have any kids yourself.





Of course he was wrong, the miserable old bastard.

And on the questions go...

Was the greater national karma of Germany fated to produce a Hitler? Such that the elimination of this Adolf Hitler gives rise to the opportunity for another... One that say hates Russians not Jews and so has Jewish scientists at his disposal for the creation of an atomic weapon.

I still wonder how many people could actually do it though? Actually kill a child, even if they knew it would grow up to be a monster?

As far as Hitler hating Russians, well he certainly hated Stalin's communist Russians, and many believe that if it were not for Stalin, then we would have seen a very different Hitler evolve, and  that he was just the first to realise what a monster he had as a neighbour.
Many saw his early moves in the war as attempts to create buffers against soviet aggression.

mozzaok wrote on Jan 26^th, 2010 at 12:04am:

I still wonder how many people could actually do it though? Actually kill a child, even if they knew it would grow up to be a monster?

Psychopaths could do it. although in Himmler's SS, recruits who would be entrusted with committing the worst atrocities, were screened specifically to exclude psychopaths. As perversely ironic as it sounds, Himmler wanted only soldiers who took no pleasure in the acts they were charged with carrying out... Demonic idealists committed to the final solution.

But in the absence of clairvoyance, who could kill the child? In the absence of pathology or evil idealism, it would universally be murder in the absolute.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 26^th, 2010 at 12:48am:

mozzaok wrote on Jan 26th, 2010 at 12:04am: I still wonder how many people could actually do it though? Actually kill a child, even if they knew it would grow up to be a monster? Psychopaths could do it. although in Himmler's SS, recruits who would be entrusted with committing the worst atrocities, were screened specifically to exclude psychopaths. As perversely ironic as it sounds, Himmler wanted only soldiers who took no pleasure in the acts they were charged with carrying out... Demonic idealists committed to the final solution. But in the absence of clairvoyance, who could kill the child? In the absence of pathology or evil idealism, it would universally be murder in the absolute.

You are talking about sacrifice - sacrificing a child to avoid future calamity. It is a determinist, unfree, superstitious intinct we all have to some degree. But I think that we are free and that our task is to live with that firmly before our eyes. I think that is what morality is - each contingent being applying his freedom to each contingent situation. This is where the tension lies.  We experience it in ourselves all he time, the tension between our determined and free natures.

Soren wrote on Jan 26^th, 2010 at 10:30am:

You are talking about sacrifice - sacrificing a child to avoid future calamity. It is a determinist, unfree, superstitious intinct we all have to some degree.

Yes, a hypothetical under the strictest of parameters, being that the actor has infallible powers of clairvoyance and that the killing of the child guarantees a better possible world. In the absence of those parameters (i.e. the real world), the killing of that child is eternally and absolutely murder.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 26^th, 2010 at 10:36am:

Soren wrote on Jan 26th, 2010 at 10:30am: You are talking about sacrifice - sacrificing a child to avoid future calamity. It is a determinist, unfree, superstitious intinct we all have to some degree. Yes, a hypothetical under the strictest of parameters, being that the actor has infallible powers of clairvoyance and that the killing of the child guarantees a better possible world. In the absence of those parameters (i.e. the real world), the killing of that child is eternally and absolutely murder.

... we are condemned to freedom...

Soren wrote on Jan 26^th, 2010 at 10:41am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 26th, 2010 at 10:36am: Soren wrote on Jan 26th, 2010 at 10:30am: You are talking about sacrifice - sacrificing a child to avoid future calamity. It is a determinist, unfree, superstitious intinct we all have to some degree. Yes, a hypothetical under the strictest of parameters, being that the actor has infallible powers of clairvoyance and that the killing of the child guarantees a better possible world. In the absence of those parameters (i.e. the real world), the killing of that child is eternally and absolutely murder. ... we are condemned to freedom...

And redeemed only by absolute morality.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 26^th, 2010 at 10:51am:

Soren wrote on Jan 26th, 2010 at 10:41am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 26th, 2010 at 10:36am: Soren wrote on Jan 26th, 2010 at 10:30am: You are talking about sacrifice - sacrificing a child to avoid future calamity. It is a determinist, unfree, superstitious intinct we all have to some degree. Yes, a hypothetical under the strictest of parameters, being that the actor has infallible powers of clairvoyance and that the killing of the child guarantees a better possible world. In the absence of those parameters (i.e. the real world), the killing of that child is eternally and absolutely murder. ... we are condemned to freedom... And redeemed only by absolute morality.

Just so. I didn't take you for a Kantian.  

I did set up with the assumption that we did have god like powers, and so the morality question was with the hypothetical scenario of knowing what would happen, is it more moral to let him live, or die?

If I alter his image a little will it make it easier to decide?

---

mozzaok wrote on Jan 26^th, 2010 at 11:03am:

I did set up with the assumption that we did have god like powers, and so the morality question was with the hypothetical scenario of knowing what would happen, is it more moral to let him live, or die? If I alter his image a little will it make it easier to decide?

Understood the premise... IF the actor had infallible powers of clairvoyance and IF the result would be a guaranteed better world, then the act of killing the child would be moral and therefore not murder.

And IF my aunty had balls...

Just thought of a plot for a movie following on from the above premise...

Clairvoyant sees young Adolf's future, knows without a doubt what he becomes in this and every possible alternate universe... Kills child. Word spreads child was killed by a Jew who was trying to use the child's body as sacrifice to Yahweh Old Testament style to advance the cause of Zionism. A relative or close neighbour grows up with a hatred of Jews above that of 'normal' Austrian anti-Semitism... Starts up anti-Semitic political movement, changes his name to Adolf Hitler in memory of dead child and the rest is.... 'history'. The greater karma of the German nation could not be avoided.

Well at least Mamma Mia gets it.

---

Let's say that you were driving home 10km above the speed limit, and that resulted in you having a vehicle crash that caused a fatality.

Hey, but absolute morality says "thou shalt not kill"

Well thou certainly didst kill, but thou claimest that thou didst not mean it  ;D Society may take the view that if you deliberately flouted the law, then you committed the act of homicide by default.

Ok, we'll change it to 60km above the speed limit. Maybe you could make the argument that your reckless behaviour was more clearly related to the final outcome.

Add to that the fact that you had been drinking, and were too intoxicated to realise that driving would be too great a risk.

It all comes down to risk factors. We take risks all the time in life, and sometimes the 'gamble' doesn't always pay off.

A lot comes down to whether society standards agree with your personal risk assessment or not.

An absolute moral code in which everybody who causes the death of a person, is treated the same, is clearly not viable.

muso wrote on Jan 27^th, 2010 at 8:50am:

An absolute moral code in which everybody who causes the death of a person, is treated the same, is clearly not viable.

You're assuming that all killing is murder or akin to murder.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 27^th, 2010 at 10:23am:

muso wrote on Jan 27th, 2010 at 8:50am: An absolute moral code in which everybody who causes the death of a person, is treated the same, is clearly not viable. You're assuming that all killing is murder or akin to murder.

I'm talking more about absolute religious codes. In parts of Sudan, if you accidentally killed somebody as a result of a motor vehicle accident, you would be fortunate to escape with your life. In some other parts of Africa it takes a great deal of bribery to get out of a similar situation, even if it was not your fault.

It's when you have highly inflexible, generally religion based morality like that where you get the most unreasonable, the least just and the most immoral outcomes.

muso wrote on Jan 29^th, 2010 at 3:38pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 27th, 2010 at 10:23am: muso wrote on Jan 27th, 2010 at 8:50am: An absolute moral code in which everybody who causes the death of a person, is treated the same, is clearly not viable. You're assuming that all killing is murder or akin to murder. I'm talking more about absolute religious codes. In parts of Sudan, if you accidentally killed somebody as a result of a motor vehicle accident, you would be fortunate to escape with your life. In some other parts of Africa it takes a great deal of bribery to get out of a similar situation, even if it was not your fault. It's when you have highly inflexible, generally religion based morality like that where you get the most unreasonable, the least just and the most immoral outcomes.

Hell Muso, in New Guinea if you accidentally killed someones chicken or especially pig you would be lucky to escape with your life. Come back and pay for it after things calm down a bit. Ol tumas kros pella.

As for old Hitler, well it would hinge on whether I believed in the unalterableness of future/past....I'm thinking butterfly wings and hurricanes. Maybe instead of killing him, if he was taken to the zoo and bought some ice-cream when he may have needed it as a child...who knows.

Then of course the Jews have been consistantly hated throughout history. Quite a few have had a go at wiping them out. Could they deserve it or bring it on themselves?

muso wrote on Jan 27^th, 2010 at 8:50am:

It all comes down to risk factors. We take risks all the time in life, and sometimes the 'gamble' doesn't always pay off.

Gee, who knew it was just actuary all along.

Like Woody Allen says, it's like anything...


Thanks Muso.


;)

muso wrote on Jan 29^th, 2010 at 3:38pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 27th, 2010 at 10:23am: muso wrote on Jan 27th, 2010 at 8:50am: An absolute moral code in which everybody who causes the death of a person, is treated the same, is clearly not viable. You're assuming that all killing is murder or akin to murder. I'm talking more about absolute religious codes. In parts of Sudan, if you accidentally killed somebody as a result of a motor vehicle accident, you would be fortunate to escape with your life. In some other parts of Africa it takes a great deal of bribery to get out of a similar situation, even if it was not your fault. It's when you have highly inflexible, generally religion based morality like that where you get the most unreasonable, the least just and the most immoral outcomes.

Funny how you conflate 'religion' and inflexibility when some religions are primarily about justice.

I know that Justice and morality are distinct concepts, but they are pretty deeply intertwined.

muso wrote on Jan 29^th, 2010 at 11:56pm:

I know that Justice and morality are distinct concepts, but they are pretty deeply intertwined.

So why play to the gallery?

Was I?  Which particular gallery was that? The anti-islamic gallery ? The racist gallery? the religious gallery, the atheist gallery? you've got me stumped.

mozzaok wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 4:52pm:

You are probably right pender, I know that I don't think in absolutes, and can usually imagine scenarios where different actions would have different consequences due to mitigating factors, but I think all of life is like that. I do wonder about some religious teachings that set themselves up as absolutes, but in practice they are not.

I don't know what you are talking about specifically but here are some religious absolutes.

God is good.
evil is what is not of god. therefore there is definate evil and definate good.

A friend who was serving in Iraq once asked me while he was there if I thought i could kill someone. My answer was "absolutely and without remorse". And I could, in certain situations.

A couple of nights ago, someone broke into my house while I was sleeping and stole my laptop, mobile phone and a couple of other things. The mobile was next to the bed, so he was actually in the same room as me. I was alone here with 2 small children and when I first realised that someone had broken in, I had a few heart-stopping seconds until I knew the kids were safe. I was a lot luckier than that family at Blacktown whose 8-yr old child was abducted from her bed and raped. If someone was trying to hurt either of my children, I could kill them, no doubt.

But could I kill or condone the killing of the baby that would grow up to be Hitler or someone like him? No.

Annie - the law of the jungle is reasonable.

It's ok to kill if it is to save your own life or if it is for food.
To save anothers innocnet life ........ reasonable.

in the real world, to kill someone would probably be a devistating event i'ld imagine.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2010 at 1:28am:

A friend who was serving in Iraq once asked me while he was there if I thought i could kill someone. My answer was "absolutely and without remorse". And I could, in certain situations. A couple of nights ago, someone broke into my house while I was sleeping and stole my laptop, mobile phone and a couple of other things. The mobile was next to the bed, so he was actually in the same room as me. I was alone here with 2 small children and when I first realised that someone had broken in, I had a few heart-stopping seconds until I knew the kids were safe. I was a lot luckier than that family at Blacktown whose 8-yr old child was abducted from her bed and raped. If someone was trying to hurt either of my children, I could kill them, no doubt. But could I kill or condone the killing of the baby that would grow up to be Hitler or someone like him? No.

Very scary indeed. I have conditioned myself to jump up at the sound of the house alarm beeping and waiting for the input code. And run to the stairs leading to the top floor bedrooms.

I am with you 100%. Get between me and my children, your dead. And with as little concern or guilt as turning off a light.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...home intruders should be shot. Dead. Period!

I do believe that there are no absolutes in morality and that everything is relative, that's why working out what's moral is pretty hard work.  But I do think accepting that morality is relative is more beneficial to humans than holding that morality can be absolute.

Naturally, you claim is totally groundless. I just don't know if you realise it.

You cannot speak out of 'nowhere in particular' because there is no such place. Relativism, like every other point of view, must have a stance that is treated as granted, as being past disputation. The peculiar dishonesty (most often unselfconscious) of relativism it that it does not recognise this.

Soren wrote on May 30^th, 2010 at 9:36pm:

Naturally, you claim is totally groundless. I just don't know if you realise it.

Soren,

Can you clarify what you mean when you say that morality is absolute?

I suspect that you probably advocate a case by case approach as much as the next person when it comes to determining the morality of a particular action, but that you strongly believe in the concepts of good and evil from some kind  of universal standpoint .

I can see that there are some things that are obviously universally bad or evil, and practically nobody would disagree with them in today's society. Rape is obviously an example, yet in previous millennia it was seen as being a war strategy in some ancient societies.  

muso wrote on May 31^st, 2010 at 11:20am:

Rape is obviously an example, yet in previous millennia it was seen as being a war strategy in some ancient societies.

Not that rape wasn't considered an act of immorality, a violation.... Just a necessary one... A (deemed) necessary demonstration of power differential between the master and the slave, the victor and the vanquished.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 31^st, 2010 at 12:54pm:

muso wrote on May 31st, 2010 at 11:20am: Rape is obviously an example, yet in previous millennia it was seen as being a war strategy in some ancient societies.   Not that rape wasn't considered an act of immorality, a violation.... Just a necessary one... A (deemed) necessary demonstration of power differential between the master and the slave, the victor and the vanquished.

Or in the case of Australian Aborigines living around Botany Bay in the early 19th Century, it was the accepted nuptial practice,  which generally involved a wooden club.

I'll scan the source material for that if you want. It comes from the Edinburgh Encyclopedia of 1805.

muso wrote on Jun 1^st, 2010 at 8:25am:

I'll scan the source material for that if you want. It comes from the Edinburgh Encyclopedia of 1805.

Ah... The one-stop-shop on Aboriginal culture... 18th century Englishmen... or Scotsmen! ;D

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 1^st, 2010 at 8:54am:

muso wrote on Jun 1st, 2010 at 8:25am: I'll scan the source material for that if you want. It comes from the Edinburgh Encyclopedia of 1805. Ah... The one-stop-shop on Aboriginal culture... 18th century Englishmen... or Scotsmen! ;D

The accounts were by Englishmen. The Edinburgh Encyclopedia was the precursor for Britannica. There was no equivalent in England. It was only around the 1850's that England caught up to Scotland in terms of universal literacy levels.

I tend to believe a factual observation like that from the time. It makes sense from what we know of many other primitive societies. What's the alternative? There is no recorded Aboriginal history, and there is nobody alive today, Aboriginal or otherwise who would have an inkling of Aboriginal society of the early 19th century.

The only accounts we have are necessarily biased, but we have to look through the bias. It's politically incorrect to say so, but there were many more Europeans killed by Aborigines than the converse, and there are records to bear this out. It was always a violent society.  

muso wrote on Jun 1^st, 2010 at 9:32am:

The only accounts we have are necessarily biased, but we have to look through the bias. It's politically incorrect to say so, but there were many more Europeans killed by Aborigines than the converse, and there are records to bear this out. It was always a violent society.

Yairs... yairs... So at odds with European and Middle Eastern history  ::)

There were exponentially more Europeans killed by other Europeans over land, power and religion.

Anyway the American founding fathers would have agreed with the idea of the savage.


Quote:

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Guess Jefferson and co never sailed on a slave ship nor attended a slave auction.... Or did they?

Quote:

http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&id=AM4NAAAAQAAJ&dq=%22The+Life+and+Adventures+of+William+Buckley%22+%22John+Morgan%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=ZFM54nNZvL&sig=CqZcXgjLZm-6tkOWF4RrgKJcMtg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#v=onepage&q&f=false

That links to a google book about william buckley, who spent 32 years living amongst the local aboriginals of the south west coast of victoria.

I have visited a few of the ancient sites they used to use along the coast, and used to have a few, unfortunately long gone now, ancient tools, which may have even been used by buckley or his wives.

So while it is an account by a european, of a europeans time amongst aboriginals, it was a time like no other white man ever had, before, or since.

muso wrote on May 31^st, 2010 at 11:20am:

Soren wrote on May 30th, 2010 at 9:36pm: Naturally, you claim is totally groundless. I just don't know if you realise it. Soren, Can you clarify what you mean when you say that morality is absolute?

Can you first clarify when I say that?

I don't know how anyone can discern a lot from what you have written in this thread, Soren.
I just assumed you were a bit pissed a few times, raving against relativism, like a hydrophobic beast, raving at the moon.

Raging against relativism is no different to raging against reality, is it?

mozzaok wrote on Jun 1^st, 2010 at 2:47pm:

I just assumed you were a bit pissed a few times, raving against relativism, like a hydrophobic beast, raving at the moon.

That's called projection, man.

:)

More like perspicacity... man ;)

mozzaok wrote on Jun 1^st, 2010 at 2:47pm:

Raging against relativism is no different to raging against reality, is it?

You are suggesting that reality is relative. That would also suggest that physics and mathematics are relative. I don't think you really mean to say that. But go ahead, surprise me....

It is not possible for you to make value judgements unless you are speaking from a point of view WITHIN an agreed value system. In other words, you cannnot be absolutely relative because that would be not only incomprehensible but unthinkable and therefore unutterable.

And so my point is that relativists who dispute any particular moral system must be speaking out of another moral system (another agreed value system). Speaking as if one didn't have such a value system out of which one makes value claims is dishonest - or drunken raving.

You can criticise any moral system you like but you can only do so either out the selfsame moral system or out of another moral system. You cannot make statements about morals out of no moral system. Some sort of ethical  framework has to be present (agreed upon, accepted, shared etc) and then you can be relative to that. You cannot be relative to nothing in particular.

See if you can really  think that you can speak of values 'out of no particular system of values'' or as you put it, out of the relativity of reality.

Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2010 at 9:21pm:

[quote author=mozzaok link=1264378137/30#43 date=1275367643] You are suggesting that reality is relative. That would also suggest that physics and mathematics are relative. I don't think you really mean to say that. But go ahead, surprise me....

So are you saying that Einstein was wrong?

muso wrote on Jun 1^st, 2010 at 9:37pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2010 at 9:21pm: [quote author=mozzaok link=1264378137/30#43 date=1275367643] You are suggesting that reality is relative. That would also suggest that physics and mathematics are relative. I don't think you really mean to say that. But go ahead, surprise me.... So are you saying that Einstein was wrong?

Even Einstein had a fixed point, the speed of light from memory, from which to be relative. There must be something in every system that is not relative. ARchimedes was already looking for a fixed point from which to lever the earth.

Human DNA is a pretty reasonable fixed point of reference. Our DNA, our social environment and our history together determine the make up of our working morality.  

The complexity of society nowadays means that we've progressed beyond simple morality, and we're now in the realms of risk assessment.

The old basic morality, as reflected in the Wiccan  "An it harm none, do as you will" (and you'll find this basic assumption in every major religion known to man) is a basic attribute of human society regardless of where you go in the world.  Added to this are the various laws of the myriad of religious and cultural traditions throughout the world.

Taken as the core of morality everywhere, it's all about minimising the risk of harm to individuals and to society on a local and global scale.

As soon as we introduced machinery that took actions thousands of times quicker than we could think, it rang the death knell for traditional absolute moralities.

A broker,  while selling shares can accidentally enter too many zeros on a computer and cause events that will cause the financial demise, and possibly death of thousands of people, but he can quite happily go to church afterwards, and believe that his actions did not break any moral code, and go on living a wholesome family life for all we know.  

If you want a pathway to modern morality, it's called risk management.  

mozzaok wrote on Jun 1^st, 2010 at 11:00am:

Quote: http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&id=AM4NAAAAQAAJ&dq=%22The+Life+and+Adventures+of+William+Buckley%22+%22John+Morgan%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=ZFM54nNZvL&sig=CqZcXgjLZm-6tkOWF4RrgKJcMtg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#v=onepage&q&f=false That links to a google book about william buckley, who spent 32 years living amongst the local aboriginals of the south west coast of victoria. I have visited a few of the ancient sites they used to use along the coast, and used to have a few, unfortunately long gone now, ancient tools, which may have even been used by buckley or his wives. So while it is an account by a european, of a europeans time amongst aboriginals, it was a time like no other white man ever had, before, or since.

I've read that book. It comes down to the fact that if you give people a fair go, they will do the right thing by you. It's a pity there were not more "Buckleys".

I've no doubt that there was a great deal of cultural variation between Aboriginal tribes, just as there is between different businesses today. It just takes a real bastard leader to mess things up for a generation or more.

If you read European history,  the personality of individual monarchs had a lot of influence on the society and prosperity of the day.

Quote:

You are suggesting that reality is relative. That would also suggest that physics and mathematics are relative. I don't think you really mean to say that. But go ahead, surprise me.... It is not possible for you to make value judgements unless you are speaking from a point of view WITHIN an agreed value system. In other words, you cannnot be absolutely relative because that would be not only incomprehensible but unthinkable and therefore unutterable. And so my point is that relativists who dispute any particular moral system must be speaking out of another moral system (another agreed value system). Speaking as if one didn't have such a value system out of which one makes value claims is dishonest - or drunken raving.

Gee, I hope that you aren't forgetting Soren that you have NO fixed point to your argument yourself?

Oh, so it is the God that you follow that decides all is it?
Let's face it, your fixed point is just a supposed 2000 yr. old idea of morality.
Don't go pretending that you understand the cosmos, becasue you know as well as everybody else that you are talking total bs.
Bring up another lie ansd tell it to that goon, whatever his name was.

Amadd wrote on Jun 4^th, 2010 at 11:04am:

Quote: You are suggesting that reality is relative. That would also suggest that physics and mathematics are relative. I don't think you really mean to say that. But go ahead, surprise me.... It is not possible for you to make value judgements unless you are speaking from a point of view WITHIN an agreed value system. In other words, you cannnot be absolutely relative because that would be not only incomprehensible but unthinkable and therefore unutterable. And so my point is that relativists who dispute any particular moral system must be speaking out of another moral system (another agreed value system). Speaking as if one didn't have such a value system out of which one makes value claims is dishonest - or drunken raving. Gee, I hope that you aren't forgetting Soren that you have NO fixed point to your argument yourself? Oh, so it is the God that you follow that decides all is it? Let's face it, your fixed point is just a supposed 2000 yr. old idea of morality. Don't go pretending that you understand the cosmos, becasue you know as well as everybody else that you are talking total bs. Bring up another lie ansd tell it to that goon, whatever his name was.

Relevance?
See http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264378137/46#46

Quote:

Relevance?

Nope, didn't see anytihng there , did you?

What was it?

Was it something outside the cosmos of understanding?

Amadd wrote on Jun 4^th, 2010 at 11:55am:

Quote: Relevance? Was it something outside the cosmos of understanding?

Yep. Your stream of consciousness may be comprehensible to you but I didn't detect any relevance to what I had posted - and re-posted.

Amadd wrote on Jun 4^th, 2010 at 11:04am:

Don't go pretending that you understand the cosmos, becasue you know as well as everybody else that you are talking total bs.

Here's a robust 'criticism' of not accepting a particular prescribed system of values:

On Tuesday, the Associated Free Press reported that Abdul Sattar Khawasi, deputy secretary of the Afghan lower house in parliament, called for the execution of Christian converts from Islam

The bit about 'christian converts' is scarcely relevant. What matters is the 'from Islam'.  Everyone is clear about what moral system the deputy is speaking out of.

Now go and equivocate between the deputy and the convert and tell us that since they are both religious, there is no discernible difference between them, as far as you are concerned.

If so, what moral system makes you treat both of them as equivocal? Just because they are both 'deluded', ie religious - is that enough for you to say that there is no difference between them?

And if you do differentiate - what is the ground on which you can make a distrinction? What makes you grant one of them  freedom of concience but not the other? If you do chose one, on what grounds? .

What is the source of your moral system that makes you think them either interchangable or distinguishable?

You just have to make a moral judgement. Can you? On what ground?i

We make up our minds on whether something is morally right or wrong based on our conscience, and I'd argue that everybody else does the same.  

The execution of a person because of their religion is totally immoral.

Those people with religions will usually be influenced by their religious views. For the rest of us, our natural conscience is unpolluted.

However if you think that all Christians  or even all church leaders will have the same views on what is or is not moral, then you're barking up the wrong tree. Even within Roman Catholicism you'll find a spread of views. So don't kid yourself.

When it comes to more controversial subjects, you'll find a continuum of positions regardless of religion. Even strictly within one broad religion, such as Christianity, you will find different positions taken by different branches of the religion. (For example blood transfusions)

muso wrote on Jun 7^th, 2010 at 2:15pm:

We make up our minds on whether something is morally right or wrong based on our conscience, and I'd argue that everybody else does the same.   The execution of a person because of their religion is totally immoral.

That second sentence is a mere personal opinion, according to the first. The 'totally' is just  bit of rhetorical flourish, not be given any weight.