Posted by so on May 28, 2005, at 23:48:19
In reply to Re: possible faulty assumption???, posted by alexandra_k on May 28, 2005, at 19:14:49
Judicial social behavior long predated any effort to articulate moral reasoning among humans. One need not hold a moral code to qualify as fully human. Morals need not be internally consistent to have value.
One need not be able to offer a reason for moral behavior, whatever moral reason might be offered need not satisfy all arguments to qualify as a moral reason and no moral reasons satisy everyones arguments. The belief in a universal moral standard is not universally accepted.
If Internet hunting is legal, society has voted there is nothing wrong with it, though some people might find value in questioning the moral integrity of those who do it. Though some offer moral reasons to the debate, a political decision one way or the other would not prove the intergity of a moral argument.
As best I understand the process here, if one says it is sick, terrible, monsterous or anthing else for people to behave in ways many people elsewhere might call reprehensible, and someone reading this board might in the adminstration's view feel put down, the administration might cite the statements as contravening the guidelines of this board and that person might only avoid sanctions if they apologize or in some other way regain the approval of the administrator.
poster:so
thread:498173
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050509/msgs/504523.html