----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 8:46 AM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:31:29 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > > But, if that template is reasonable, then we can use all of our > > skills to answer that question. > > We don't have to confuse utilitarian arguments with moral ones. How do you seperate practicality from morality? Let me give you an extreme example. "Let them eat cake." If there is no bread available but cake is, it doesn't seem unreasonable to eat the cake if one is hungry. But, given the fact that cake was more expensive than bread and bread was, through shortage, too dear for the poor, that was an immoral statement. > > I know some folks who believe that morality is a matter of feeling empathy. > > You waxed long and poetically in your post about how you felt the > > pain of people dying. > > That was about the cost of war, utilitarian, not moral. Then what is morality? A long list of rules? My basis for morality is "love neighbor as self" Thus, the consequences of my actions are important when I determine whether the actions are moral or not. I have no idea what you are arguing from. Every time I deduce a position from a careful reading of your posts, I'm told that I'm projecting something. Nick, I'm not the only one who is not getting what you intend to convey. If it were more concrete and less vauge, it would help. Dan M. > > Do you think having such feelings is what > > morality is about....that only those people who feel a emotion at a > > certain time are acting morally? > > No. > > Nick > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
