Quote:
|
Quote by: Aaron Spicka Like if I were to try and argue that murdering a stanger was right because in murdering that person I would save anothers life than I'd be an idiot. Yes it does save a life but it doesn't make taking of a human life right. Or if One was to witness a driver run into another car and than take off. If that person doesn't say anything to owner of the car about who hit the car than it is wrong to let that person get away with damaging the property. |
What controversial issues! Murder and fleeing the scene. No, the ends don't justify the means. No, you can't infringe on one of our three essential rights--life, liberty, and property. At least throw something out that's a little hazier and make it easier to shoot down.
Now, on to the meat of the issue--which y'all have completely failed to address--the question is what establishes these absolutes. Where do they come from? I contend that it is impossible to establish these absolutes in such a way that many people will agree with you.
So far, I've heard religion and society. Let's go from there. Religion, you could argue, establishes stances on a set of issues. I don't think we should pretend it touches on everything. Even the Mormons squabble over a few things and they have a living prophet. Where does that put everyone else? No church has got it absolutely right. Maybe that's because "absolutely right" isn't there?
Society I think a more laughable claim than religion. Again, there is a certain set which is clearly defined, but we are so divided on so many major issues--death penalty, abortion, welfare, etc.--that I don't think we can call that absolute.
I think I did a pretty good job there. So, when we talk about absolutes, are we talking about the easy issues, like murder and drunk driving, or are we talking about the real dilemmas? Let's get deep enough that this discussion at least matters.