esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (10/14/84)
From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP > The only thing that IS a moral issue is something that is pretty obvious > -- nuclear war is bad. Wayne Wrong! There are plenty of other moral issues, like: is it right to target civilians (arguments over the "Principle of Double Effect", the innocence of civilians, etc.)? How much money should we spend on security vs. other things? Should an all-out attack be retaliated for, even though our nation's doom is then sealed (an eye for an eye?)? Besides, even if there were only the one issue -- I was defending Reagan's use of the term "moral obligation" in regard to this issue. >> But issues such as nuclear war are eminently public--we are talking not >> just about the American public but the future of the whole human race. >> If that is not a moral issue, I don't know what is. <SEVENER> From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP: > You are missing a few important points -- morals are SUBJECTIVE. It ain't so. And even if it were, the next statement would be a non- sequitur. > That means that there can be no such thing as "public" moral issues that > the government should be dictating to us. Morality inevitably involves public issues -- issues of interpersonal conduct. Look under "ethics" in a dictionary of philosophical terms. > I am thinking of things like abortion and religon when I use the term. > Nuclear war, however, is not a moral issue, because whether somebody > wants to destroy the human race is not a relativistic thing. Hey, neat! -- just redefine some terms and you can apply them however you want! Never mind being true to the English language ... --The insufferable iconoclast, Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's. Thanks.