</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Nevermind. Feeling poopy enough without getting into it with people who aren't going to say diddly to me. Later folks. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Tiggy, you have me bumfuddled. Your first post on the thread and it's the above?

How do you make the conclusion that "people who aren't going to say diddly to me" before you even post anything?

Must be "relative," I guess.

FH

Oh FH I am just funking out over marriage/affair cr@p. Shouldn't have posted that. Not anyone's fault here. It's just me and having some difficulties back in the relationship that brought me here to begin with. Relate the above to total and utter funk. Can't blame PMS this time so I will just leave it in funkytown. Sorry you guys. End of interuption, back to the regularly scheduled debate. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Tiggy

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> P.S. The Marxist philosophy epitomized moral relativism. They held to NO moral standard other than "whatever benefits me." All morals were subject to personal suitability and nothing more. They made up their own rules as they went along and forsook all moral absolutes such as lying, murder, stealing, etc. I don't know how you can possibly see all the murders in their path and claim they were moral absolutists; they were anything BUT!</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Marxists have their bible and it was written by Karl (the father of communist literature). They follow the doctrine to the letter and have an absolute moral code. You may not agree with their moral code, but it is clearly absolute and hence this absolutism leads to the atrocities well known to all of us. If you ever talk to a true and true Marxist he will tell you they despise bleeding heart liberals who are moral relativists. A true Marxist does not compromise--------- after all they hold the truth in their hands. I suggest you spend some time in the Politics forum and engage a true communist in conversation.

An absolute moral code can be corrupt.

Do you realize that those who went to war in the name of religion were absolutists? Many of them Christian!

What I am saying is: An open mind is better than an absolute.

BTW, have no problems with near absolutes and I could debate whether killing Hitler is justified or not.

Stan, that is not the definition of moral absolutism. An absolutist subscribes to a universally accepted set of morals. It is universally accepted that murder, lying, stealing, etc is wrong. That is The Moral Code. The Marxists REJECTED The Moral Code.

Rejection of this Universal Code in favor of another "personal" code IS the definition of moral relativism. It is the opposite of absolutism.

What you have described *is* moral relativism. Marxists made up their own moral system, which is the exact definition of MORAL RELATIVISM.

Absolutism most certainly does not lend itself to atrocities; it PREVENTS them because it means adherence to a universal moral code that specifies that murder is wrong.

Ya have this backwards, Stan. You aren't differentiating between moral relativism and moral absolutes.

<small>[ February 03, 2005, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</small>

Sorry to intrude, I’m drawn to these interesting threads. Please ignore if my comments are not welcome.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by MelodyLane:
<strong> Stan, here is the definition of moral relativism:

Moral Relativism - What's It All About?
Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it."

http://www.moral-relativism.com/

See, according the def of moral relativism, Hitler was justified in killing 6 million Jews because "it was right for him." There is no absolute standard of right and wrong, only personal opinion matters. Your word against his and both are equally valid. Is Hitler's opinion just as valid as yours? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This is not the philosophical definition of Moral Relativism.

The above definition was pulled from a religious website that also makes the preposterous implication (read further down) that, if one accepts modern scientific findings (Evolution in particular), then you must also believe that:

“Therefore, anything you do is OK, because it ultimately doesn't matter”

Such a website is utter rubbish. You would have been better served if you had pulled from a more reliable source, such as the on-line Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism

The ‘standard’ philosophical definitions (there are several versions) of moral relativism essentially maintain that there is no absolute way to determine what is morally ‘correct’ from what is not. That is, all moral judgments are ultimately, subjective (i.e. ‘relative’) to some degree.

It does not say “I should do whatever I want, because nothing is wrong” (nor does Marxism). Again, it says only that I have no way to determine what is absolutely morally right; it certainly does not say I have the ‘right’ to act in whatever manner I please.

It is easy to insist that something is true, but much more difficult to demonstrate it. A key question was raised earlier but never addressed:

Noodle--So the question now is..what MAKES murder wrong as opposed to merely different than something that we feel is justified such as killing in self defense.


Expanding on this question, is it possible to demonstrate that an action is objectively morally wrong? How so? By scientific experiment? By logical proof? I would suggest, if one can accomplish either of the above, then you know something more than all other human beings on the face of this earth do.

If morality is indeed absolute, then this should be easy to accomplish: without making the assumption that God exists, can someone objectively demonstrate that murder is morally wrong?

ML-STANLEY-

Moral relativism is the position that moral propositions do not reflect absolute or universal truths. It not only holds that ethical judgements emerge from social customs and personal preferences, but also thre is no single standard by which to assess an ethical propositions truth. Many relativist see moral values as applicable only with certain cultural boundaries, some would even suggest that one person's ethical judgements or acts cannot be judged by another, thought, most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory.

Some moral relativists, like Jean Paul Sartre hold that a personal and subjective moral coral lies at the foundations of our moral acts. They believe that public morality is a reflection of social convention and that only personal, subjective morality is truly authentic.

Moral relativism is not the same as moral pluralism, which acknowledges the co-existence of opposing ideas and practices, but does not suggest that are equaly valid-Moral relativism in contrast, contends that opposing moral positions have no truth value, and that there is no preffered standard or reference by which to judge them.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by dimpsasawa:
[QB]
The above definition was pulled from a religious website that also makes the preposterous implication (read further down) that, if one accepts modern scientific findings (Evolution in particular), then you must also believe that:

“Therefore, anything you do is OK, because it ultimately doesn't matter”

Such a website is utter rubbish. You would have been better served if you had pulled from a more reliable source, such as the on-line Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism

The ‘standard’ philosophical definitions (there are several versions) of moral relativism essentially maintain that there is no absolute way to determine what is morally ‘correct’ from what is not. That is, all moral judgments are ultimately, subjective (i.e. ‘relative’) to some degree.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And you simply just repeated what I quoted from that website using different words. The definition is exactly the same. The fact that it is a "religious site" does not discredit the definition I posted, anymore than the fact that your definition is automatically discredited because it is a secular site.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It does not say “I should do whatever I want, because nothing is wrong” (nor does Marxism). Again, it says only that I have no way to determine what is absolutely morally right; it certainly does not say I have the ‘right’ to act in whatever manner I please. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Sure it does, that is the definition of moral relativism. It is the rejection of a universally accepted code of morals. And that is exactly what the communists did when they slaughtered millions of people and lived lives filled with lies and theft. If one does not accept a universal code of morals, then where do their morals come from?


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">If morality is indeed absolute, then this should be easy to accomplish: without making the assumption that God exists, can someone objectively demonstrate that murder is morally wrong? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">If you really need an "objective" demonstration to know that murder is wrong, would you volunteer to allow me to murder you? Your children?

Thanks FrederickGirl, that is exactly how I define it and is a good definition. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

<small>[ February 03, 2005, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</small>

ML--And you simply just repeated what I quoted from that website using different words. The definition is exactly the same.

D--No, it is not. As far as I can tell, your definition maintains that ‘anything goes’ with respect to moral behavior--that ‘M.R.’ endorses the concept that one should act however one wishes. This is false. It says nothing of the sort.

ML--The fact that it is a "religious site" does not discredit the definition I posted, anymore than the fact that your definition is automatically discredited because it is a secular site.

D--No, and I never stated nor implied that it did. However, the rather ludicrous statement that appeared further down on that website did automatically discredit it (at least to me). I would think that if I pursued that site further, a number of additional factual errors would appear.

quote:
________________________________________
It does not say “I should do whatever I want, because nothing is wrong” (nor does Marxism). Again, it says only that I have no way to determine what is absolutely morally right; it certainly does not say I have the ‘right’ to act in whatever manner I please.
________________________________________

ML--Sure it does, that is the definition of moral relativism.

D--Yes, according the website that you quoted. No, according to the website that I quoted, and no, according to how the term Moral Relativism is typically used in philosophy. Can you find support for your interpretation in a reliable source (such as the one that I have provided you)? From what I have read, mainstream philosophers of “M.R.” disagree with your definition: it does not give one the ‘right’ to act however one wishes. This is what you are missing: it says nothing at all about what is ‘allowed’ and ‘not allowed’ behavior. Based on what I’ve read, I also think FrederickGirl’s definition is a fair one. It is different from yours as well.

ML--It is the rejection of a universally accepted code of morals.

D--Not precisely. It is the rejection of the idea that we can *find* a universally accepted code of morals—because there is no code of morals that is universally accepted by everyone, nor is there an objective way to verify any particular moral code. The difference in our definitions may appear subtle, but it is significant—do you see it?

ML--And that is exactly what the communists did when they slaughtered millions of people and lived lives filled with lies and theft. If one does not accept a universal code of morals, then where do their morals come from?

D--I don’t espouse that philosophy nor know much about it, so I personally couldn’t say. However, I believe the communist moral view is utilitarian: the ends justify the means.

quote:
________________________________________
If morality is indeed absolute, then this should be easy to accomplish: without making the assumption that God exists, can someone objectively demonstrate that murder is morally wrong?
________________________________________

ML--If you really need an "objective" demonstration to know that murder is wrong, would you volunteer to allow me to murder you? Your children?

D--So your argument is: dimpsasawa doesn’t want himself and his family to be murdered, therefore murder is objectively wrong? How does what I personally wish have anything to do with the moral objectivity of an act? Were talking about my personal desires. Hard to think of something more subjective.

If I don’t believe murder is objectively wrong—why does that imply to you that I wouldn’t care if I were murdered? It is certainly wrong (and undesirable) to me personally. Therefore, I don’t want it to happen. Similarly, just as I can’t demonstrate that a meteor accidentally falling on my house is morally wrong, doesn’t mean that I want that to happen either.

So where is the objectivity in this?

D, will you please answer a question for me?

Do you feel that the Holocaust was wrong?

P.S. I do agree with FG's description of moral relativism, so I think we can both agree and move forward from that understanding.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">juat way too many variables to make that general statement.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">There is no reason why I can not make the general statement that with maturity comes the internalization of a moral code. When or if a person reaches maturity may depend on various factors, but that does not negate the general statement.

There is a interesting discussion of Kohlberg's theory of moral development at:

http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm

This discussion only mentioned religion in passing. Kohlberg does not believe that moral development occurs merely through maturation, but requires that the person think about moral issues. Based on his theory, morality based on "god's laws" seems to be at most Stage 4.

dimpsasawa - you are quite welcome to participate. Your opinions are as valid as anyone elses. How they may be received by others.....well.....that's all relative. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">If morality is indeed absolute, then this should be easy to accomplish: without making the assumption that God exists, can someone objectively demonstrate that murder is morally wrong? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">dimpsasawa, I want to be sure I understand the position you are arguing, so if you could clarify WHY you chose to "except" God from your statement I would appreciate it. As it stands, you imply that only the existence of God would allow for an "absolute" standard of morality, and I just want to be sure that IS what you are arguing.

Next, what sort of "objective demostration" would you consider to be "proof positive" that murder is morally wrong? I suspect that we are back to discussing WHAT or WHO determines that an action by ANY person is morally good or morally bad. This is back to the "yardstick" issue I talked about earlier. But, for you to ask such a question implies that you DO have some sort of acceptable (or required) objective demostration in mind. Since we are NOT animals, acting on instinctive behavior, but are thinking, rational, beings, I would think that your "objective demonstration" would go beyond merely something to provide "order" in a society of "thinking individuals."

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The above definition was pulled from a religious website that also makes the preposterous implication (read further down) that, if one accepts modern scientific findings (Evolution in particular), then you must also believe that:

“Therefore, anything you do is OK, because it ultimately doesn't matter”

Such a website is utter rubbish. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">dimpsasawa - This attack upon an opinion because it is based upon a faith is unbecoming. You may disagree with the opinion, but to "brand" it as "utter rubbish" indicates a bias against Creationism and for Evolutionism, with the attendant probable corollary that "God doesn't exist."

I don't intend to get into a discussion in this thread about the existence of God or the validity of Christianity versus other faiths, but I will say this, because it's germaine to the thread topic; If "God" does not exist, then ALL of the moral teachings connected with ALL religions are false and the mere musings of some human writer. They may, at best, be a "good way" to maintain a semblance of order in a given society, be attractive to some sympathic other humans, but they cannot form an "absolute" set of moral standards that are applicable to all humans, at all times, at all places on the earth. .

If some human WERE to be able to set up a list of moral standards that applied to everyone at all times, by what authority would THAT human have to impose HIS will upon other "free thinking" "I think, therefore I am's" in the world? What would give HIM the "evolved" right to be "better than anyone else" and therefore entitled to say HIS moral standards are the best, no matter what you or anyone else may think or feel?

FH

LINY - some very good questions! Don't hesitate to jump into the discussion. I especially like the following from you;

"Choices and terms" really is the basis of this whole conversation and of one's "morals"--decisions of actions based on their own personal teachings.

Choices certainly come into play as we are faced with many decisions every single day.

Of particular importance to a discussion of any kind, and certainly to this sort of discussion, is the necessity for a definition of terms. Common words can very often be used, but they may have very different definitions and meanings to each person. So it is important to understand exactly what someone means when they use a particular term like "Christian," "Atheist," "Secular," "Humanist,"Religious," "Morals," "Evil," etc.

Good show in pointing that out!!

Melody:

As stated by you I am mostly an absolutist. I have a set of values that have kept me out of trouble. I am not sure where I got them, but my wife tells me it is the result of having near perfect parents. Please note I said mostly an absolutist.

Earlier you said:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">An absolutist subscribes to a universally accepted set of morals. It is universally accepted that murder, lying, stealing, etc. is wrong. That is The Moral Code. The Marxists REJECTED The Moral Code.
Rejection of this Universal Code in favor of another "personal" code IS the definition of moral relativism. It is the opposite of absolutism.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">For some issues I use my own perspective, so that also makes me a part time moral relativist. As DP said, this does not imply that I do as I please with disregard to others. It simply means that the morality of some actions must be judged based on the situation. IF we knew what is right and wrong from the get go we would not need lawyers or the supreme court. In fact the ultimate law books that cover everything would have been written (with no need for editing) hundreds of years ago. The fact that the laws must change constantly to deal with new situations should tell you that there is no absolute moral code. If we knew God’s plan we could get rid of all that, no doubt. The problem is that many things about God are a mystery. We cannot know what God really wants.

As for the a universally accepted set of morals

Whose morals Melody? There is no such thing as a universally accepted set of morals. Did you know that for most Muslims the American style of dating among teens is considered highly immoral. Don’t overestimate these folks--- they also have horny teenagers for children. So what do they do. They get them married and bring them home to live with them.

<small>[ February 03, 2005, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: Stan-ley ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This discussion only mentioned religion in passing. Kohlberg does not believe that moral development occurs merely through maturation, but requires that the person think about moral issues. Based on his theory, morality based on "god's laws" seems to be at most Stage 4. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Nellie, the article makes for interesting reading, but it rambles a lot and interjects things (like "justice") that have to do with laws, rules, and regulations, rather than individual morals.

For the record, I would disagree with your assessment of "Level 4, at most" for "god's laws."

Let me simply state the 2 "greatest laws," according to God: "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor s yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:29-31 NIV) See also Luke 10:25-37 and Matt.19:16-26

You might want to compare that to his "Level 6" morality category. It seemed interesting how after all his thought and research he was getting back to what Jesus already said.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:
For some issues I use my own perspective, so that makes also makes me a moral relativist. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But everyone uses their own perspective, that doesn't make one a moral relativist. Everyone doesn't change their morals from situation to situation. Or reject a universal moral code. For example, you wouldn't say that murder is ok on Tuesday and then say it is wrong on Wednesday when it suits you. Nor would you consistently say that murder is ok. The point is that you have a consistent and absolute moral code that is applied consistently.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">As DP said, this does not imply that I do as I please with disregard to others. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> IF we decided that we knew what is right and wrong from the get go we would not need lawyers or the supreme court. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But you do know right from wrong. You don't need a lawyer or a judge to tell you that.[unless you are a criminal and if you don't know right from wrong, then you should be locked up] The Supreme Court interprets our laws and how they fit to specific situations, they don't make laws or design moral absolutes. Our prisons are full of people who don't know right from wrong and that is exactly where they should be.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The fact that the laws must change constantly to deal with new situations should tell you that there is no absolute moral code.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Laws change and society changes but morals do not. Murder is and always will be immoral. Stealing has always and always will be immoral. Courts are certainly not the arbiter of universal morals, unless you believe that slavery was moral during the years it was deemed legal in the US. Unless you believe that it was just to kill Jews in Germany in WWII.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Whose morals Melody? There is no such thing as a universally accepted set of morals. Did you know that for most Muslims the American style of dating among teens is considered highly immoral.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You are referring to a social custom, not a moral. It is a social custom that is designed to prevent out of wedlock teenage sexual relations, almost all cultures observe the same morality against fornication, they just have different ways of practicing it.

And I don't agree that there are not moral absolutes, there is a universally accepted set of morals. The basics of morality are clear. Everyone knows murder is wrong for example. Everyone knows that it was wrong to kill 6 million Jews. Some may deny that but they certainly can't defend it.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">LINY - some very good questions! Don't hesitate to jump into the discussion. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Thank you! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />
BUT...I will leave the meat and potatoes to you, Mel, Stan, ol2, and WAT, when he gets back. I find it completely stimulating and thought provoking to read discussions such as this. Stagnation of the brain only creates pond scum! (Did I infringe WAT's copyright? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="images/icons/cool.gif" /> )

Nellie...maturity in itself has too many variables, hence, so does your statement. That's all I was trying to point out.

Stan-ley said:
The fact that the laws must change constantly to deal with new situations should tell you that there is no absolute moral code.

And Melody Lane responded with:
Laws change and society changes but morals do not. Murder is and always will be immoral.

Stan-ley - it would seem that you are arguing along the lines of the old phrase, "sin is in eye of the beholder." Societal Mores and Individual Morals are not always "in sync" with each other.

Isn't this much along the lines of the arguments about the reality of "evil" and arguments about the existance of "sin?" Without the "tie" to religion, i.e. that we WERE created by God, who then established the "rules" according to HIS will, not our will, who is left to determine what is sin and what is not, what is moral and what is not, what applies to everyone regardless of time or place?

To Melody Lane's point; "Murder (according to "Man" is not always murder) is and always will be immoral." In many Islamic countries the concept of, and practice of, "Honor Killings" is accepted, practiced as normal, and is considered by many to be "moral," whereas not doing the killing is considered to be immoral.

So the question originally asked in the thread is still relevant. If not God's (the Judeo/Christian God) commands, then who's commands carry the authority to bind a "moral code," a "moral compass?" If left to the individual choice, what choices does the individual have to "pick from" and one having selected THEIR OWN set of moral values, what gives them the right to expect or demand that others pick the same morals when they, also, have the enshrined "free will" right to pick and choose for themselves?

If our "time on earth" is all that there is, what overarching set of common and immutable moral code exists and applies to ALL humans, regardless of when or where they live? If there is nothing "beyond" life here on earth, what is the point of universal morals? Order in society is certainly a "reason" for establishing some "rules and regulations," but societies change and the rules of society often conflict with our individual feelings and desires. If WE are "supreme" what would make ANY moral value NOT relative?

OK I am a spiritual midget ,poorly equipped to argue but it would seem to me that if God's laws are not accepted by a person, then perhaps the law of the Jungle is the instinctive one to follow. Or the selfish gene rule or whatever its called today.

Without an external absolute moral rule, then surely doing what best supports our gene-pool is the bahviour that is 'right'. By not impregnating any female you can subdue are you not failing your genes ?By not killing every potential competitor that you can subdue are you not failing your offspring ?

Thats what I don't understand about humanism.

Without God we are just intelligent animals, so why do we collectively and individually normally exercise compassion and mercy and forgiveness?

Why in evolutionary terms did morality, compassion and such come to pass when it is contrary to the 'selfish gene' survival of the fittest theory? I really don;t understand.

I for one am glad to have Gods absolute rules, hard though they are to follow. I could not write my own morality wihout reference to them.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by ForeverHers:


To Melody Lane's point; "Murder (according to "Man" is not always murder) is and always will be immoral." In many Islamic countries the concept of, and practice of, "Honor Killings" is accepted, practiced as normal, and is considered by many to be "moral," whereas not doing the killing is considered to be immoral. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But they do not define this as murder. They believe that killing the "infidel" is an act of justice. But, they do believe that murder is wrong. [as they define it]If they thought murder was ok, they would just call it murder; they wouldn't bother to rationalize it. They simply misdefine the meaning of murder in order to justify their acts. But, they DO know that murder is wrong.

NOW....even though I say this, I am NOT saying that murder is wrong simply because society [some] views it as such. Man does not determine right and wrong, he knows it. My point is that he discovers an existing set of moral absolutes that already exists; that God imprinted on his soul. Although some may deny it, men know right from wrong.

<small>[ February 04, 2005, 06:12 AM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</small>