i guess that depends on what you think a really really bad deed is. according to the bible, no sin is worse than any other. it is only humans (arguably, in a selfish attempt to imagine oneself as more righteous than another) who gradiate sin.
If your God believes that murdering 3 million Jews isn't measurably worse than stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving child, then your God cannot be a moral entity by any standard.
is being responsible for the murder of an entire race worse than lying to your spouse? i don't think so.
I do. And I question your morality if you don't.
yes it's a touch (excessively) farfetched, but you get the idea.
What if you do the right thing, and a person comes to unjust harm as a result? If you're going to look at results, even good actions can have bad results. You can choose not to steal, but what if a child starves because of it?
the only just thing is to assume that all bad things are equally bad and that the only thing that can save someone is a single specified method.
Of course it isn't. The only just thing is the mature and intelligent realization than no finite moral code can encapsulate every moral situation, and that therefore the only fair response is to examine the harm caused by the infraction.
That's the position of moral relativism, and it's the only rational response to the obvious truth that some things are worse than others.
there is either light or absence of light
Ill-considered analogy on your part: there's obviously shades of light and dark - a continuum of right and wrong.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-24-2004 05:44 AM
™ Version 4.2
