Re: The nature of alternative history
- Decreasing freedom within a society is not necessarily immoral if the
scoiet in question is likely to collapse without such a curtailment
of freedom , leading to anarchy and a generally worse standard of
life and array of freedoms for most memebers of that society .
I would classify murder as immoral . But what is murder ? The
unjustified and deliberate taking of a human life ! Again what is and
what isn't justified is dependant on human judgement and will often
be seen differently by differnet groups within society and by
differnt societies .
Aggressive war ? Is their any other kind . By that I take it you mean
a " war to conquor as oppossed to defend " . In actuality most wars
contain elements both to defend one or more of the nations involved
and to subjagate others .
Genocide , the deliberate attempt to destroy a society and its
peoples . Historically , I think you'll find that most nations are
founded on the bones of the peoples who came before the current
Illegal seizure of a state . HMmmm ??! Can't agree with that one .
And it seems to go against you're own principles that increasing
freedom is always good . Was the Snakes head plot to kill Hitler and
replace him with a more moderate regime immoral ? Or any of the
countless plots to depose Stalin and replace him with a more
reasonable leader ?
What about states in which the populace freely elects a government
which promises to abolish democracy and bring in a fundementalish
Islamic state which will vastly curtail all freedoms , but the
military steps in and seizes power to prevent the abolish of the
system , such as happened in Algeria a few years ago ?
Theft can be morally justified under certain circumstances .
I would argue that stealing to feed your family from someone who has
a surplus of food is justified . It violates the laws of society
yes , but the overall harm done would be less from performing the
action than if you hadn't done it and your family had starved to
death . By doing that you would be efectively ignoring your
obligation to them , which could hardly be described as in any way
Under UK law it is possible to mitigate a criminal act by proving
that had you not performed it , the consequence would have been an
even more serious criminal act or an even greater harm
(necessity ) . I would argue that the same morality could easily be
applied to theft .
Again suppression of free speech and human rights can be justified
under some circumstances if it prevents societal collapse or if the
poulation is determined to use those rights in a self destructive way
to destroy the very rights they are exercising (as in the ALgerian
example quoted earlier ) .
Each freedom in the heirarchy of freedoms is necessarily based on the
simpler rights and freedoms below it . Hence the right to free speech
or to democratic election , are meaningless to someone who has
nothing to eat and no roof over their head .
The fundemental obligation of any society is to provide stability and
continuity for the mutual advange of the majority . Without that
there is no reason for any society to exist .
Again your arguements effectively depend on everybody having the same
point of view as you .
As GBS puts it " He is a barbarian . He believes that the customs of
his tribe are are the laws of nature ." :)
I would say that there are no good or bad men ,only harmful of
unharmful actions . Over-simplifying and pidgeonholing people who are
responsible for terrible acts does no-one any favours .
" They're mad , or they're bad " is simply a cop-out , and an attempt
to distance them from ourselves . The sad truth as the Millgram
experiments showed , is that the Nazi's were essentially no different
to the average American or the average Britain , and it is only by a
quirk of historicla fate that the USA or UK did not end up travelling
along the same dark path as they did .
> Decreasing freedom in a society is immoral.be
> Murder is immoral.
> Aggressive war is immoral.
> Genocide is immoral.
> Illegal seizure of control over a state is immoral.
> Theft is immoral.
> Suppression of free speech and other human rights is immoral.
> Now, my list of Nazi crimes is certainly brief, but we can continue.
> If you fail to grasop why these actions are immoral, than I am more
> than glad to hand-hold you though the reasoning to understand. True
> morality is of such a character that any reasonable person should
> able to come to aggreement on it...and
> You might call it a categorical imperative. If you catch my Kant...
> The fact that no one is perfect morally is not an argument against
> trying to be as moral as possible, promoting an ethical society,
> censuring or acting against those who are immoral. The perfect must
> not be the enemy of the good.
> All that need happen for evil to prevail is for good men to do
> nothing. By your relatavist ideolology, there are no good and bad
> Clearly not a useful dogma for addressing Nazi's, who were very bad
- No you won't. I said I wanted this thread dead
*immediately*, and I meant what I said. Anyone who
posts on it again will be summarily dismissed from the
list, joining Mr Ghost.
--- John Faerseth <edelgris@...> wrote:
> I will post the necessary statistics a soon as I et__________________________________________________
> home, in about fie hours.
> --- tom_paines_ghost <tom_paines_ghost@...>
> > LOC< ccan you give a source supporting your claim
> > that interracial
> > mixing is uncommon in the United States? Certainly
> > all African
> > Americans have extensive Euro DNA, the heritage of
> > centuries of rape
> > and oppression.
> > Evidence, please?
> > --- In alternate-history@y...,
> > <lord_of_change2001@y...> wrote:
> > > Well technically I suppose so ! But then 70-80 %
> > of "White"
> > americans
> > > have 1 or more " black" ancestor ! Racial mixing
> > in the US
> > > is not particularly pronounced , and the vast
> > majority
> > of "whites"
> > > or "blacks" in the US are predominantly of
> > European or African
> > > descent respectively . Situation is far less
> > pronounced WRT Native
> > > american descendants .
> > >
> > > LoC
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In alternate-history@y..., John Faerseth
> > <edelgris@y...> wrote:
> > > > I thought African-Americans were actually of
> > mixed
> > > > African, European and American Indian descent?
> > > >
> > > > --- lord_of_change2001
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better