From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: sgi
Lines: 40
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1qlvh1$fh0@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> In article <1qkn25$k@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> 
|> #Do you mean it's moral to use force on someone who advocates
|> #the use of force?
|> 
|> With a few provisos, yes.  Minimum force, for a start. And, it
|> depends on what is being forced (on either side).   
|> 
|> #Or do you mean that sometimes we have to use force on such
|> #people out of necessity or self-defence, while recognizing
|> #that our own actions in doing so are not moral?
|> 
|> My opinion is that our actions would be moral, and it would be
|> immoral not to act if action would be both necessary and effective.  
|> Again, there many caveats and provisios.
|> 
|> Note, my usage of "my opinion" is an admission that I don't have a lock
|> on morals, not that there is no truth about morality to have a lock on.

You're admitting a lot more than that.  You are admitting that
your morals are situational.   You are admitting that the actions
of other people and the situation you are in help to determine
how you judge the moral significance of one of your own actions.

If you employ X degree of force, that's not moral, but if you employ
X degree of force, but previously someone else has employed Y degree
of force, and the situation is thus-and-so, that *is* moral.

This is quite different from saying "Employing force on other people
is immoral, period.   Unfortunately, from time to time we are obliged
to do this immoral thing for reasons of self-preservation, and so
we have to bear the moral consequences of that.

For what it's worth - and yes, I know you claim to be an agnostic -
it's this ability to re-label things from "immoral" to "moral" 
that I find one of the *least* attractive qualities of the religious
mind.

jon.
