Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
I never said killing was an absolute wrong. The only people that I know that have ever proposed something like this are pacifists and liberals - the same people that believe in moral relativism.
It is wrong to intentional kill innocent people. It is wrong to not kill someone if your choice is either killing them or letting them kill innocent people.
I think killing in certain circumstances is wrong, but in certain cirumstances is a moral imperative.
You are confusing absolute with simple, and are confusing relative with complex. The rules may be complex but they are absolute. Our legal system may getting more complicated all the time but it is not getting more relative. The laws in our legal system our absolute and not relative no matter how complicated they get.
When you say morals are relative you are saying that in certain circumstances it is OK to kill innocent people. Or that in some cutures it is OK to kill innocent people and not in others. Relative meams that morality can change with the circumstances. Absolute means that they do not.
Justs like our laws apply equally to all men and women all the time so does the universal moral code.
|
Look up the definition of absolute and then look up the definition of relative, Spank.
The pro-life movement rests largely upon the backs of people who base their opposition to abortion upon their belief that life begins at conception and all life is sacred. Even if I were to accept your modification that killing itself is not an absolute wrong, and I do, obviously, isn't "innocent" itself a relative term?
When we shell a village in Iraq, even if we take very effort to minimize collateral damage, we both know that innocent people will die. How is that not a choice that our life isn't worth more than theirs?
