Bob Tiernan wrote:
> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
> > Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
> > > Well, on the government side we've eminient domain
> > > and impressment.
>
> > Under the Absolute Moral Law this is stealing.
>
> Bill *loves* to advocate or hide behind "Might
> makes right", or (as he sees it), "Might
> makes Moral". That's why he has no problems with
> the State using its powers to remove residents
> from a decent yet politically outnumbered
> neighborhood to make way for upscale condos,
> or remove a family business (auto repair
> shop) to allow a politically-connected
> business owner expand his own business at
> that same good location, all in the name of
> "improving the economy for the greater good".
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Iffen my house is on fire, there's nothing
> > > morally wrong about taking my neighbor's
> > > garden hose.
>
> > There is if your neighbor doesn't permit..
> > Anyhoo, I think you meant "borrow" not "take".
>
> Yes, the latter is okay by me considering
> the circumstances. If he fights to keep
> his hose from being used, he may lose
> friends. Those are consequenes he needs
> to think of.
>
> On the othjer hand, I find some example from
> history to be quite interesting. Like with
> the great fire in Seattle in the 1870s
> or 1880's when the first generation wooden
> buildings were disappearing in a matter of
> hours. One wealthy property owner saw
> the fire getting closer to his own
> buildings and wanted to knock down the
> buildings that stood between the flames and
> those not yet burned, including some of
> his own. But he had to buy his neighbors'
> buildings first in order to have the right
> to knock them down.
Yes, the twists and turns of human events influences
moral choices but that in no way has any altering
affect on Absolute Morals... that's what makes them
absolute.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
