Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2.fluke 9/24/84; site vax1.fluke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!fluke!tron
From: tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: The Shame of the President:the Last and Next Holocaust
Message-ID: <1010@vax1.fluke.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-May-85 16:30:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: vax1.1010
Posted: Wed May  8 16:30:12 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 9-May-85 03:18:26 EDT
References: <599@whuxl.UUCP> <1340040@acf4.UUCP>
Reply-To: tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee)
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Lines: 23

>One is not noble for giving one's life for an immoral cause even
>if one wholeheartedly believes that it is right.  Nor, in such a case,
>is one a "victim," since one made the decision him/herself.
>
>					Michael Sykora

So who decides what is moral?  I can easily see many situations where a person
lives life by the standards that they believe to be correct - are even willing
to give their life to preserve those standards - and therefore are, I feel,
"good" people, deserving of my respect.  Included in these situations is that
the standards in question are those that I cannot respect - communism, fascism,
infanticide, etc.

I think it is pointless to describe how much cultures vary and change, it
should be obvious that definition of "acceptable behavior" has changes mightily
from culture to culture or from century to century.  Do you propose that we
judge every person (living of dead) by today's western standards?

I do agree that there is a difference between being noble and being a victim.
Noble implies (to me) suffering a loss as a result of having or keeping a 
principle, while victim implies suffering a loss without a choice.

Peter Barbee