Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MaggieL
I'd dispute both those claims. First off, "there's a difference between right and wrong" is not identical with "right and wrong are absolutes".
|
Moral absolutism says that morals exist on an objective basis, outside of the minds of humans (often but not always as dictates from God). If that isn't the case, then morals are subjective.
Of course, even if there
are objective morals, there's still the question of how to discover what they are, since everyone disagrees.
Quote:
|
The "moral equivalance" I take issue with would hold that the actions of Hezbu'lah and those of Israel have equal moral standing, and I think that's totally bogus.
|
Of course, after the philosophical discussion above, that stuff isn't really useful. Whether morals are objective, subjective, or relative is more suited to a philosophy class than politics, but when "moral relativists" becomes some sort of political insult it has to be dealt with to some extent.
On a practical level, however, I'd agree that Israel is better than Hezbu'lah, but that doesn't excuse any of the bad things they do.
Quote:
|
Anyway, being neither Jewish nor Christian I'm not defending Chris Muir's use of "Judeo-christian" in pointing out the bankruptcy of "moral equivilance"...it just happened to be today's Day-by-Day.
|
Good, because I have a strong suspicion that people using the term "Judeo-Christian" are usually talking out of their ass.