 |
 |
ON Sept 17 Murph adamantly wrote: >I am very sad, however, that so many on this list seem to believe that >morality is relative and that, as Joan Carol Urquhart states: "Anyone >with a heart would agree that to alleviate human suffering, at any moral >sacrifice, is good and right." Joan, you have just justified Columbine >-- after all, those young men were suffering and they chose the killing >of their classmates and themselves to alleviate their suffering. How could any single human being justify murder?...If you re-read my words, you will note that I say that "to alleviate human suffering at any MORAL sacrifice is good and right." When I say a 'moral sacrifice'... I do not mean to suggest that one should sacrifice one's morals. Instead I mean that if we can help someone through moral means or if, through moral means, we can help to alleviate another's suffering, lets not waste time, lets do it. If medical science can craft a cure for Parkinson's Disease without harming anyone in the process, do it. I am not advocating that we hurt or kill or work without morality to do so... How have I justified Columbine? The only people who try to justify violence are the people who commit violence or profit from it. The boys who did the Columbine killings may have, as you say, "suffered", but their suffering is diminshed by the violence they perpetrated on others. We all have a right to our feelings. But none of us has a right to harm another person. What happened in WWW11 Germany under Hitler's regime, including the medical experiments was autrocious. Unfathomable. We are in agreement. But once again, words get in the way of our understanding each other. They tie us up in Knots of misunderstanding. "All in all Each man in all men all men in each man All being in each being Each being in all being All in each Each in all All distinctions are mind, by mind, in mind, of mind No distinctions no mind to distinguish" R. D. Laing Be at peace Joan U.