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