From: Michael S. Lorrey <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 15 January 1999 16:24
Subject: Re: Property and life
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dick.Gray@bull.com <Dick.Gray@bull.com>
>> To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Date: 14 January 1999 16:35
>> Subject: Re: Property and life
>> >I wrote:
>> >>There's no "right" or "wrong" way to construct a bridge, say? We can
>> >>achieve our purposes in any arbitrary fashion?
>> >Samael replied:
>> >>Sorry, I thought we were talking about morals
>> >We were, but you did write: "There is no 'right', 'wrong', 'valid',
>> >'invalid', 'good', 'evil' EXCEPT within moral systems_" (emphasis mine).
>> >Was that a slip of the pinkie, then?
>> sorry, i'll rephrase:
>> When we are talking about morals, 'right', 'wrong' ,etc. only make sense
>> relative to a particular moral system. In the same way that a speed is
>> always relative to an observer or other frame of reference, an action is
>> only right relative to a particular moral framework: ie some actions are
>> perfectly reasonable under a utilitarian framework, but completely
>> unreasonable under a christian framework. You have to look at the action
>> and see what the framework says about it rather than the action being
>> or wrong seperate to that framework.
>> Sorry, is that clearer?
>Yes, you are correct EXCEPT in denying the existence of zero, a natural
>fixed point within the moral space continuum from which all others can
>and which binds the moral continuum to real behavior in the real universe.
>in relativity space there are absolutes, like the speed of light, the
Where is this zero, how do we find it. What does it derive from. How do we observe it. With the speed of light, there are observations and meausurements we can make, not so with morals.