SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Neocon who wrote (12484)4/27/2001 9:41:19 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 82486
 
That presumes that the moral quality of the action is obvious, rather than a matter of controversy. Where there is legitimate disagreement, Christopher's point stands......

Even the most tolerant among us is intolerant of something. I've often quipped that the only thing I'm intolerant of is intolerance but, of course, that's not true. Tolerance challenges us to draw reasonable boundaries for legitimate disagreement in many areas.

I can appreciate much of the pro-life argument. I am pro-choice mostly because individual conscience should rule in matters where there is legitimate disagreement. Where anti-abortion crosses the line of legitimacy, IMO, is when it disallows contraception, disallows stem cell research, or murders doctors. Here's an article on stem cells from today's Post.

washingtonpost.com

Karen



To: Neocon who wrote (12484)4/27/2001 3:38:11 PM
From: Lazarus_Long  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 82486
 
Christopher's point stands
Christopher's point seems to be that if an action is justified in the context of that person's belief system, then the rest of us must respect that action. The example I am pointing out is extreme, but that is intentional. The holocaust was justified in the context of Hitler's belief system; nevertheless, it was abhorrent and evil.

And "in the context of" is seen to be an unreliable guide to moral decisions and actions.