[Ron]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
What we ought to do is personal opinion, as is what can be defined as just.  In Hitler's eyes, and Saddam's eyes, and every other dictators, what they were doing was just.  All the matters is who has the will and ability to enforce their version of justice.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

So anyone having enough power is applying justice by any action they choose? This does not make any sense to me. I am not one to subscribe to moral relativism and that is what is being described here- "It is justice if I say it is justice."

I believe there are moral absolutes, having remained absolutes throughout human history and not influenced by any cultural bias. I know of no culture where theft is a "good" thing, here and now or any time in history. Theft has always been "bad" behavior.If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality. The fact is that we all do believe some moralities are better than others.

The moment we say one morality is better than another, we are measuring both by some standard, saying one of them conforms to the standard more closely than the other. Keep in mind, now, that this standard is neither of the two, but rather the measuring rod in which we are applying the two moralities.