Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rochester.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!rochester!ray
From: ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: How come God doesn't affect Dave?
Message-ID: <12039@rochester.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 3-Oct-85 09:03:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: rocheste.12039
Posted: Thu Oct  3 09:03:32 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 6-Oct-85 05:22:36 EDT
References: <2214@sdcc6.UUCP> <583@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA>
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Lines: 34
Xref: watmath net.religion:7885 net.religion.christian:1403

> >In article <561@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA>, tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney)
> >writes:
> >
> >> As for the ethics of personal condemnation, when people initiate personal
> >> condemnation, then it is ethical to respond with same.  
> >
> >Does this moral premise extend to other areas of life or is it just for
> >personal condemnation?
> >
> >				Rick Frey
> 
> In general, someone who has not abided by a moral principle has forfeited
> any right to protection under that principle.  For instance, if someone is
> trying to kill someone else, then it is moral to kill them, because they
> have no right to object.  Morality is exclusive of double standards.  The
> person who commits an offense against another and then whines piteously when
> the same is done to her or him is trying to have it both ways.
> -=-
> Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking
> ARPA:	Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K	uucp:	seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim
> CompuServe:	74176,1360	audio:	shout "Hey, Tim!"

What in effect you are advocating here is that it is reasonable under the
proper circumstances for a person to behave in a manner that was originally
condemned as improper behavior.  A judges B, A's behavior is abominable,
but B in turn judging A is OK?  What is not evident here is whether or not
A was justified and B was not.  Or whether B's behavior in any case is just
as abominable as A's.  This is one of the arguments of the anti-capital
punishment groups.  They feel that under no circumstances should a murderer
be murdered in turn by a legal system.  They feel murder by any other name
is still murder, no ifs, ands, or buts or buts about it.

Bottom line here is that your argument is by no means a cut and dry issue.
The ends do not always justify the means.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com