As Dan Minette said,
parse the phrase
" sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children ...
So, if that phrase not a prediction as I said earlier, then it is a
statement of obligation: "majority must ...". Either way, it is not
a statement of desire. It is a statement of a presumed, social
requirement, much like a statement that "a debtor must pay his bills
..." (Again, whether the debtor pays or whether many US soldiers will
die is a prediction.)
Looking at the phrase as a statement of obligation, Moore's goal is to
present a particular moral obligation as part of a `narrative'.
Moreover, Moore's way of saying it, his rhetorical technique, is to
state the obligation as a consequence of being in this universe rather
than as a consequence of human choice. (This rhetorical technique is
very common, so common we are hardly aware of it.)
Moore's words are a statement of necessity: `whether you like it or
not, moral actions have consequences'. I think that claim itself is
true among family members and in small groups, but not necessarily
true when you deal with strangers whom you may never meet again. (A
person accustomed to computer jargon would say that the notion `does
not scale'.)
As far as I can see, the statement is of the same nature as the
statement that `crime does not pay' -- a statement whose intention is
to discourage crime. Even though I personally agree with the
statement, I also read many stories, some of which give evidence for
the opposite.
--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
