Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A critique of moral relativism
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 114 of 219 (412088)
07-23-2007 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Modulous
07-23-2007 6:03 PM


Re: Oh, Christ...not again
I'm talking about the current series of posts which aren't directly related to the marriage issue. He's not being specific now, he's being vague and evasive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2007 6:03 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2007 2:23 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 116 of 219 (412093)
07-23-2007 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by anastasia
07-23-2007 6:12 PM


quote:
Please don't make me discuss what another member thinks.
I'm not making you. You CHOSE to. I'm just asking you to explain why you think that's what he believes when it seems very unlikely to me. And if you don't know it then I think you shouldn't have done it at all. But it was your decision to to it - unprompted by me. So don't blame me for 'making' you do it. Because it isn't true.
I've discussed the issue of contraception with Catholics in the past and the Catholic church seems confused on the matter. Still the official position is that NFP is acceptable and it is therefore not required that every sex act be for the purpose of reproduction. Moreover, infertile couples are permitted to marry and have sex and therefore producing children is not a necessary part of marriage or sex to the RC Church either. And the Catholic Church takes a relatively hard line on this issue so to suggest that mainstream Christianity takes an even harder line is quite wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by anastasia, posted 07-23-2007 6:12 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by anastasia, posted 07-23-2007 8:43 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 118 of 219 (412172)
07-24-2007 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by anastasia
07-23-2007 8:43 PM


Your first post misrepresented mainstream Christian doctrine. Your second admitted that but said that we should assume that NJ had those views - for no good reason. And in the third you insisted that you didn't want to talk about NJ's views (and tried to blame me for "making" you do it) - having just done exactly that.
So I have to wonder what the real point of any of it was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by anastasia, posted 07-23-2007 8:43 PM anastasia has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 120 of 219 (412178)
07-24-2007 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Modulous
07-24-2007 2:23 AM


Two points off the top of my head. The "is murder wrong" question where he doesn't explain which definition of murder he's using (despite all the discussion) and only in his last post did he mention that he meant "absolutely wrong" which presumably means wrong in an absolute sense.
The second is the basis of the link between homosexuality and bestiality in his argument which he refuses to explain.
And there's no explicit references or links in the posts you list. It seems more like general memories (which may or may not refer back to the threads you have in mind)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2007 2:23 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2007 2:58 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 123 of 219 (412185)
07-24-2007 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Modulous
07-24-2007 2:58 AM


You're the one arguing that we can look for specific explanations in some other thread. But if all you can say is that there is some vague link and nobody - not even NJ - has actually used it as a direct reference in the course of discussion - there really isn't much there. Maybe you expect everyone to go diving into the archives to try to find the right posts in the right thread but I don't see that as reasonable.
What I see as completely vague about his comparison between homosexuality and bestiality is the link that justifies his argument. He won't explain what it is. Simply arguing that both are forbidden in Leviticus won't do since it doesn't touch on the reasons why they are forbidden. If thats all he's got - and it seems it is - then my point, that he sees them as arbitrary rules - is sustained. Which is why it's odd that you and he keep disagreeing with me but not producing any valid alternative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2007 2:58 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2007 4:10 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 132 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-24-2007 12:34 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 126 of 219 (412200)
07-24-2007 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Modulous
07-24-2007 4:10 AM


quote:
It's reasonable if people start making accusations about what someone else has said in the past. Either be prepared to back up the accustations or don't make them - it's built into the rules more or less.
Well I'm not doing that. I'm asking him to explain what he's saying now.
quote:
For instance: you say that NJ has not explained himself about the sexual practices issue. I say he has, and show where. The defence to this is not "you can't expect us to read what he said!"
This is the first time you've given a reference to a specific thread - I certainly didn't know it was "the Haggard thread" you were talking about. And if someone is making vague comments now the answer is not to go diving into the archives in the hope of finding some explanation somewhere. If NJ had provided a clear reference in place of simply answering then I would not be complaining - but that's not the case. Trawling the archives is not the same as following a link or even being given the name of a thread (and even searching a thread can be something of a chore, even with the 300 post limit)
quote:
And yet I see that he has, many times. I was hoping you could point me in the direction of where he has been vague about the whole thing so that I might see for myself. I've certainly spent a lot of time pointing to where he hasn't been vague.
He's been vague in this thread and the other threads run at the same time. And you haven't been pointing at anywhere specific. Just because he has bene more specific at some time in the past is no excuse for refusing to explain himself with anything other than denials.
quote:
God's will is obviously arbitrary - he is The Arbiter of Arbiters. The Judge of Judges and all that shite. I don't think I've ever argued otherwise on that
Well you disagreed with me when I said that the connection was that there was nothing actually wrong with either. And that's saying the same thing.
quote:
In your terms - NJ has an arbitrary rule - but relativists don't. So how to decide what parties get to marry?
Well if there's no good reason for allowing or forbidding any particular marriage - which is your version of NJs position - why worry about it ? I'd say that there are good reasons for allowing marriages on more or less the current basis (it seems to work and wholesale change would cause problems which require us to justify making the change). Fairness requires that we extend that to gays (because their relationships are so similar to heterosexual relationships that we consider valid marriages) and because they are denied some of the basic benefits (like hospital visiting rights for partners) on the basis that they are not married. But there's no such reason to extend it to allow marriage to non-humans until there are non-humans actually capable of being a full partner in a marriage.
quote:
The only other time the issue came up was that NJ simply said all sins are equally sinful. But that isn't particularly interesting or offensive either.
The only objectionable thing there is that it isn't really true. It's an official position that doesn't really reflect the attitudes on the ground.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2007 4:10 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2007 10:07 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 135 of 219 (412347)
07-24-2007 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Modulous
07-24-2007 10:07 AM


I find Rrhain's recent posts rather ranty so I tend to skim those.
quote:
Since absolutism isn't the primary topic here, I don't think nemesis has to justify why his God has chosen to command against the two. Even if it was - nemesis should have no problem with shrugging his shoulders. It's God's rule - take it up with him. If no believey God: take it up with 'Moses'.
I guess you still don't understand my point. NJ is explicitly arguing that unless you think that homosexuality is immoral you shouldn't think that the other things on the list are immoral either. But there has to be some basis for this argument. And if it isn't that the various behaviours are so similar that the same objections must apply to each or that there is no good reason to forbid any of them it must be based on an understanding of the reasons WHY they should be banned. So if he shrugs his shoulders and says "I dunno" he's saying that his argument is unfounded since he doesn't know of any basis for it.
quote:
Quite probable. I don't claim absolute knowledge. I have asked various people to point to other examples, to little avail. Perhaps someone on the ground might throw me a bone at some point - up here on the ivory tower we sometimes get out of touch.
Have a look at the earlier posts in the Haggard thread again. Archer Opteryx points out that Iano regards Jar wanting Hovind to get the sentence he's earned as far worse than Haggard taking crystal meth and paying a male prostitute for gay sex.... Talk about subjective morality !
Anyway looking at the thread it looks like NJ's argument is that non-absolute morals should be ignored. And he's ignoring all the refutations, including my point that in saying that he's arguing for nihilism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2007 10:07 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2007 4:51 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 136 of 219 (412353)
07-24-2007 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Hyroglyphx
07-24-2007 12:34 PM


Re: Listen to what I am saying, as opposed to hearing what you want to hear
Well that's interesting because I HAVE been listening to what I am saying. I wish I could honestly say that you have been listening to what I've been saying. But I can't,
quote:
Listen to me, please. When I brought up beastiality, incest, pedophilia, or whatever else, in a context of homosexuality, it was always from a reference from a moral position.
The argument I've made is this: how can you say that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable, while maintaining that incest or pedophilia is not, all the while defending moral relativism?
Because I can see reasons to object to bestiality which I consider adequate and I can't see similar reasons to object to homosexuality. Why can't I do that ? That's what I'm asking and you aren't answering.
quote:
Why am I considered a "bigot," when
1. Morals are merely an opinion.
2. How can you possibly distinguish which is good, and which isn't, while holding to a relative standard?
The answer is that you can't without compromising one or both positions. Its a lesson in futility-- one that apparently quite a few still haven't learned.
You are considered a bigot because you keep making inflammatory comparisons and some take them as representing your true thoughts. How does this contradict moral relativism ?
Your second point is even sillier. If I've got a standard I just compare the action against the standard. What on earth is the problem there ? Where's this supposed compromise ?
quote:
The ENTIRE point of the argument is that you, as a relativist, cannot defend both positions philosophically without contradicting those beliefs. How has this flown over everyone's head? Seriously. I'm absolutely mystified.
In some cases it is because of your choice of examples. In my case the assertion hasn't passed over my head. It's just that you haven't managed to support it. Even when I ask.
quote:
Secondly, how is it that people can say that I can't use beastiality, either in an argument on morals or nature, because the sexuality of animals and humans are too different. Yet, these are the same people who have no problem pointing out that homosexual unions are found within nature, and use that as a justification that extends to humans.
So far as I know nobody uses the first argument. The latter in is only used as a refutation of the claim that homosexuality is unnatural - without the qualification that it is only unnatural to humans. True it leaves open the possibility that homosexuality might be unnatural to humans - but it does refute any suggestion that homosexual behaviour should be automatically considered unnatural. In the context it is actually used it's good enough - unless and until a case is made that homosexual behaviour really is unnatural to humans. I've not seen that done. The usual response is to shift the goal-posts.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-24-2007 12:34 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-24-2007 2:33 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 158 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-27-2007 11:15 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 140 of 219 (412366)
07-24-2007 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Hyroglyphx
07-24-2007 2:33 PM


Re: Listen to what I am saying, as opposed to hearing what you want to hear
quote:
So then it still boils down to your perception against mine. And if its all relative, what is that supposed to mean to me? Its as asinine as you telling me that you like Chocolate ice cream, and me saying in response, okay, thanks for sharing.
Yes it does. The question is, do I have a good case ? Who do other people agree with ? Whose position is more consistent with basic moral principles ?
And you can't offer anything better. You've admitted that you can't prove any moral absolutes. Believing in moral absolutes won't solve disagreements - not in itself.
quote:
Because you are using my alleged bigotry in an absolute sense-- consequently, your own. If morals really are relative, then you calling me a bigot is merely your opinion.... So, what?
Calling someone a bigot is not really a moral judgement, so your point fails. To make it work you would have to admit to being a bigot but argue that tere was nothing wrong with that.
quote:
But lets all agree that moral relativity is all that we have. I will respond accordingly.
I hope that means that you are not going to turn to nihilism to "prove" your point. Because it won't.
quote:
If homosexuality cannot be reasonably identified as unnatural, then neither can beastiality or pedophilia.
Why not ? It doesn't follow from the arguments raised. You get called a bigot because you keep making these assertions without providing any reason why you need to do it. Your behaviour does raise the reasonable suspicion that you think that all these activities are equivalent.
quote:
Which means, you are making the same moral pronouncements that I am. Where then do they come from?
In this case mainly from society, although there may be a genetic element, too. (There almost certainly is in the case of incest).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-24-2007 2:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by anastasia, posted 07-24-2007 4:24 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 143 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-24-2007 4:24 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 147 of 219 (412422)
07-24-2007 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Hyroglyphx
07-24-2007 4:24 PM


Re: Listen to what I am saying, as opposed to hearing what you want to hear
quote:
What does the agreement of people have to do with anything?
I refer you to your title for this subthread. I have already stated that morality is intersubjective and used language as an analogy. Agreement is important.
quote:
What is a basic moral principle without a basic moral guideline from which to establish a a basic moral principle?
The most basic elements of morality - those that lie at the base of our social instincts. e..g fairness.
quote:
I can't prove what is absolutely (im)moral, that's true. And its also true that it won't solve disagreements. The problem is, neither will relativism. But vastly more important-- there never would have been any disagreements to begin with until somebody challenged those absolute morals.
i.e. your point is irrelevant since the problem is there even if we believe in an absolute morality. And relative systems work too - so long as they aren't challenged. But any system will be challenged because - as you admit - there's no way to prove any system correct. Sooner or later someone will challenge the status quo. And in a world like ours with competing systems that claim to be moral absolutes you will never get a system that is unchallenged unless you lock yourselves away from the world.
quote:
What??? That's not a moral judgement? Then what is it? If you call me a bigot for thinking homosexuality is wrong, you are also presuming to call me morally wrong.
Only because you agree that it is morally wrong to be a bigot. Look at the definition.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
big·ot [big-uht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
No explicit reference to a moral judgement there.
quote:
No, I was responding to Modulous who said that nihilism differs from moral relativism.
I based that comment on your argument that only absolute morals count. If you really believe that then an acceptance that we don't have an absolute morality could lead you to nihilism - and your statement resembled a threat closely enough that it could have meant that.
quote:
Propose a refutation then.
Sorry I can't let you get away with evading this issue - after all it's a perfect opportunity for you to show that you are not a bigot. That you actually have a good reason for linking homosexuality, bestiality, paedophilia and incest in your argument. Odd that you are so reluctant to take advantage of it. And the forum rules do require you to support your points.
quote:
Equivalent to what? Morally? I've already said that I question whether or not there are tiers of sin. But if there are not, then bad is bad, sin is sin, wrong is wrong.
No, I'm suggesting that it looks as if you are implying that the acts are so similar that they should be judged together. I'm sure that you're going to prove that isn't so by providing a good argument instead of just evading the issue. Again.
quote:
But this society still says that homosexuality is wrong. Remember, you want to change the status quo?
THIS society is divided on the issue. Enough people do not feel that homosexuality is wrong - or that if it is wrong there should still be no legal or civil penalties for homosexuality and homosexuals should enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals. The law now provides for a good deal of equality for homosexuals and heterosexuals. Even in your society things have moved that way in parts at least. And of course getting morals form society isn't simply a matter of agreeing with the majority. There is still an individual element, differing priorities, different evaluations, different applications of the basic moral principles.
quote:
And as far as something being bad genetically, its only on an individual level. What's bad for the individual may be great for the population.
I refer you back to your chosen title. I am referring to a genetic basis for aspects of morality - e.g. the aversion to incest. Not to advantages or disadvantages of genes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-24-2007 4:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 148 of 219 (412424)
07-24-2007 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Modulous
07-24-2007 4:51 PM


quote:
I'm not sure on the wording here so I'll try and reword it (all the negatives in it are confusing me), whilst also replying to you. Hopefully this'll work, but apologies if it doesn't. NJ is explicitly arguing that if you think homosexuality is moral then you are a moral relativist and are employing moral relativism to justify calling homosexuality moral. Therefore, you should justify calling any sexual practice moral.
Yes, that is what he's saying. It still makes no sense. Why can't my relative code permit homosexuality and bar the rest ? And why does he keep evading the question ? Obviously he's hiding something.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2007 4:51 PM Modulous has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 159 of 219 (413053)
07-27-2007 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Hyroglyphx
07-27-2007 11:15 AM


Re: Listen to what I am saying, as opposed to hearing what you want to hear
quote:
Probably because I haven't heard those objections-- only that you object to it.
OK so lets go over the problems with that position.
Firstly the fact that I haven't given those reasons doesn't offer much support to your claim that there I can't possibly have any. The more so since others HAVE given reasons.
Secondly even if I didn't have reasons others could - and you know that they do.
Thirdly at this point you are arguing FOR permitting bestiality. The only concession you can reasonably hope to get is that there is nothing wrong with bestality.
For the record I consider bestiality to be the equivalent of using a live animal as a sex toy. The animal is not capable of giving rational consent and cannot be assumed to have any desire for the act whatsoever. Moreover the animal is likely to suffer distress or even actual physical harm.
quote:
By doing so, you are making it a rule that by my objecting to homosexuality, I should be automatically villafied for it. Thus, you are making a moral judgement about me, which is all fine and good if you want to do so, but at least admit that is what you're doing.
All I did was explain why others called you a bigot. That isn't making a rule.
The reason I gave was NOT simply objecting to homosexuality but the offensive way you go about it.
Thirdly the rule you falsely attribute to me does not involve any judgement of you whatosever.
So honesty compels me to deny your assertion.
quote:
How it contradicts your relativistic standards is in the application you present. You are calling me a bigot as if its supposed to be meaningful to me. You are tacitly making an appeal for me to use some universal moral in understanding why homosexuality is peaches 'n' cream and daisies swaying in the wind.
It does mean something to you. That's why you're so determined to deny it. And no I'm not appealing to any universal moral - just the common element of our moral standards. So the "contradiction: is simply your invention. It's what you want me to say - not what I said. And the fun thing is that I haven't even called you a bigot yet. Want to read tht e title of the post again ?
quote:
And if that's not what you are saying, then all you are doing is voicing your opinion-- in which case, thanks for sharing.
If I did call you a bigot it would still be saying something other than the moral judgement you (incorrectly) attribute to it. It would still mean that you are intolerant and prejudiced even if you see nothing wrong with that.
quote:
I'm not sure what you're referring to since I deleted your quote of me. Can you elaborate?
You can't just scroll down and look ?
quote:
2. How can you possibly distinguish which is good, and which isn't, while holding to a relative standard?
And the answer is by applying the standard. If you've got a standard of good and evil you use it to work out what is good and what is evil. Isn't that obvious.
quote:
Paul, these are axiomatic maxims were dealing with, not pretentious ramblings. I have presented a philosophical question that appears to be insoluble without amassing contradiction after contradiction. Its just the nature of it.
An axiom should be self-evidently true. Not something that on the face of it appears to be false. You've had answers to your specific examples. You haven't demonstrated any contradictions. Invented, yes, but that doesn't count. Resorting to fabrication only shows the weakness of your case.
{add para}
So can you actually explain the basis of your argument ? Because I see none that is self-evidently - or even probably - true. And your continued evasion only makes it more likely that you are simply using it as an excuse to be offensive - or that you are hiding your reasons because you really are the bigot that some have concluded that you are.
{end}
quote:
It does nothing of the such because it proves nothing about animal sexuality.
The fact that animals do engage in homosexual behaviour demonstrates that it is natural to them.
quote:
The point is, if someone is going to say that I can't make reference to beastiality and homosexuality from a moral context (because animal sexuality and human sexuality are not similar enough to make any kind of connection), then neither can the opposition cite references that say chimps and dolphins engage in homosexual acts, therefore, it logically extends to humans. That's completely hypocrtitical.
Assuming that your argument does not rely on equivocation it's a strawman. Nobody is making the argument you mention. So you've got no point. Just more misrepresentation.
Edited by PaulK, : Added paragraph (marked) to emphasise a point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-27-2007 11:15 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 160 of 219 (413057)
07-27-2007 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by anastasia
07-24-2007 4:24 PM


Re: Listen to what I am saying, as opposed to hearing what you want to hear
quote:
Paul, please, don't be so naive. In the religious moral system of a great, large, huge amount of people, ALL forbidden sexual behaviours ARE equivalent. That is, they are ALL wrong. In Catholicism, for example, they are all as wrong as murder, as genocide, as suicide. They are 'mortal sins'.
I missed this the first time. It misses my point completely.
The equivalence I refer to is an equivalence of the acts - a very close equivalence of the acts - not the moral judgement made about them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by anastasia, posted 07-24-2007 4:24 PM anastasia has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 177 of 219 (414608)
08-05-2007 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Archer Opteryx
08-05-2007 7:37 AM


Re: Shared priorities
I largely agree. There are shared basics and they are part of human nature. Morality is the name that we give to those behavioural instincts that positively contribute to working together as a society, balancing personal interest with the interests of others.
The points of difference are less important. I'd put fairness up with the rest, no matter that it overlaps with empathy. I'd also point out that application of the values listed does require knowledge. I'd point out that old applications of these basic values can become traditions, and adhered to even if the original basis has been discredited or forgotten. The systems of morality we have constructed around the basic underlying values are almost entirely learned, not derived anew. This they may contain errors or rules that no longer make sense given our current society - which, of course, has greatly changed over time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-05-2007 7:37 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-08-2007 1:09 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 182 of 219 (415095)
08-08-2007 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Archer Opteryx
08-08-2007 1:09 AM


Re: Shared priorities
quote:
Another variable is the shifting definition of one's 'society'--where we set the boundaries that separate the beings we protect from the beings we protect them from.
Relatives? Clan? Nation? Species? All living things?
Party? Religion? Ethnicity? Orientation? Gender?
A very important point. I have to agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-08-2007 1:09 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024