Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site masscomp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!masscomp!lip
From: lip@masscomp.UUCP (John Lipinski)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion
Subject: Re: Next!
Message-ID: <169@masscomp.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Dec-84 10:03:00 EST
Article-I.D.: masscomp.169
Posted: Tue Dec 11 10:03:00 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Dec-84 04:46:11 EST
References: <544@wucs.UUCP>
Reply-To: lip@masscomp.UUCP (John Lipinski)
Distribution: net
Organization: Masscomp - Westford, MA
Lines: 24
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:1298 net.religion:5043
Summary: 

In article <544@wucs.UUCP> esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) writes:
>
>> So to say that "Thus and such is (morally) wrong" is to say "Thus and
>> such is detremental or harmful to (will cause to change) my culture."
>> Gordon A. Moffett		...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,sun}!amdahl!gam
>
>Obviously false, given that people often call things done by their
>culture morally wrong, even when the practice is entirely consistent
>with the other aspects of the culture.  There is nothing odd about
>such criticism of one's own culture, yet by gam's definition it
>would be very odd indeed (self-contradictory even).
>
>So much for that definition.  Next!
>				--The aspiring iconoclast,
>				Paul V. Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047

No, you don't get off that easy.  You'll have to give us some examples of 
"morally wrong" things that that are  "entirely consistent with  the other
aspects of the culture" before you can say "obviously false."


		- John Lipinski