Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!fsks From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) Newsgroups: net.flame,net.religion,net.philosophy Subject: Re: Another small question. Message-ID: <61@unc.UUCP> Date: Sun, 21-Apr-85 21:18:58 EST Article-I.D.: unc.61 Posted: Sun Apr 21 21:18:58 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 22-Apr-85 02:30:16 EST References: <1521@decwrl.UUCP> <5426@utzoo.UUCP> <13@unc.UUCP> Reply-To: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill Lines: 28 Xref: watmath net.flame:9429 net.religion:6715 net.philosophy:1698 Summary: In article laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: > >Yes, I would kill to protect those I love, if I thought that it was necessary. >I don't see that this has anything to do with killing monkeys for gourmet >dinners, though. > >Laura Creighton >utzoo!laura Originally, you gave a general rule for deciding when you would kill -- You would kill to save your own life. You said that this rule applied equally to killing animals or people. I only wanted to point out that your rule was incomplete. You would also kill to maintain freedom and diginity for you and for your loved ones. But freedom and dignity is a quality-of-lifestyle issue. Some people don't consider these worth killing for. Others do. It's a moral issue. The question Ken Arndt posed was: In the absence of religion, how does one choose one's moral values? Without an absolute standard promoted by a Higher Authority, morality becomes nothing more than custom. And recent history shows that mankind can become accustomed to some pretty odious practices. Frank Silbermann