Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site acf4.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!zehntel!dual!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!cmcl2!acf4!mms1646
From: mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: The Shame of the President:the Last and Next Holocaust
Message-ID: <1340074@acf4.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-May-85 03:00:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: acf4.1340074
Posted: Fri May 10 03:00:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Jun-85 05:44:44 EDT
References: <599@whuxl.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 45


>/* tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) /  4:30 pm  May  8, 1985 */

>>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.

>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.

Why are they "good" people?  Clearly they (communists, fascists, etc.)
don't abide by any system of morals that you and I call good.  If such
a system has any significance, then these people are not good but bad.
If the system has no significance, then they are neither bad nor good.

>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. 

Not everyone does, and certainly no one should, completely rely on the
prevailing culture for their definition of good and bad.
Furthermore, if morality is to have any meaning at all, it cannot merely
consist of cultural norms.  Otherwise, it isn't morality, but cultural
norms (no need for a separate word if there's no separate concept).

>Do you propose that we
>judge every person (living of dead) by today's western standards?

That depends what you mean 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

If that is how you choose to define noble, fine.  I doubt tht this is what
most people mena by nobility.  If it is, then I don't see why one should
accord any respect to the noble.

						Mike Sykora