Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Look up the definition of absolute and then look up the definition of relative, Spank.
|
Don't get arrogant and ignorant on me.. Wonk. I already explained to you how I understood the definition and you did not. It is clear you are still confusing absolute with simple and relative with complicated. If I am a moral absolutist I do NOT have to believe that killing is either wrong or right in all circumstances. I can believe in an absolute moral code and believe killing is OK under certain circumstances in not OK in other. Just like I can believe in an absolute legal code where killing is legal in certain circumstances and not legal in others.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by taxwonk 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.
|
Many of the pro-life people do not beleive all life is sacred. In fact most don't. But they believe that it is wrong to kill innocent life. If a zygote is a life form then is it not also innocent? If you believe that life begins at conception, and you believe that it is wrong to kill an innocent life, then you need to be against abortion.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by taxwonk 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?
|
Killing under certain circumstances is an absolute wrong and under other circumstances is an absolute right (or moral imperative). Most of them time intentionally killing an innocent life is wrong. Actually that has to be a inncent human life. But innocent is not a relative term. You just need to define it. In addition, there are exceptions when killing an innocent life is OK. Although I doubt there are very few when intentionally killing an innocent life is OK. However, if a plane full if innocent civilians has been highjacked and the plane is heading for one of the towers of the world trade center. I think it is OK to shoot it down and kill everyone on board.
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
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?
|
If you want to get into a discussion about right and wrong OK. But if you are a moral relativist this discussion is fruitless. We both have to agree that there is such a thing as right and wrong. And that right and wrong apply universally. If you are a moral relativist then we have to acknowledge that rights and wrongs can change from culture to culture and time to time. Right now by initiated this discussion you are assuming there is a universal moral code and we should debate what it includes.
In the example you just cited we are not choosing that our life is more important than the innocent Iraqi villager. We are deciding that it is in the best interest of Iraq that these villages are cleared of insurgents. If the insurgents are not defeated no one in Iraq is going to have any rights. So it is in the interest of promoting the universal moral code (the idea of promoting justice) that we shell these villages.
