: Louis Epstein wrote:
:> ***@virgin.net wrote:
:> : Louis Epstein wrote:
:> :> ***@virgin.net wrote:
:> :> :
:> :> : Louis Epstein wrote:
:> :> :> (Gary wrote:
:> :> :> : "Matt Lavengood" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
:> :> :> :> Stan Brown wrote:
:> :> :> :> > My belief is that it won't be seriously considered until the King's
:> :> :> :> > or Prince of Wales' eldest child is a girl.
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> Right; if it's not gonna change anything, why bother?
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> : Because if one believes that it is the right thing to do, it changes a
:> :> :> : great deal whether there is an immediate practical result or not. I
:> :> :> : happen to be an agnostic on this subject, but if one takes the position
:> :> :> : that succession rights are somehow related to "justice", the principle
:> :> :> : is at least as important as the actual gender of the heir.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> However,justice is an IMMUTABLE principle,
:> :> :> and it is only possible for succession laws
:> :> :> to need change as a matter of justice if they
:> :> :> have ALWAYS been unjust...therefore to demand
:> :> :> change for the future calls into question all
:> :> :> past successions that have gone against the
:> :> :> rule declared to be just.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Either the English throne passed into the wrong
:> :> :> hands in 1100 and has never been in the right
:> :> :> ones since,or there is no injustice in the eldest
:> :> :> child of Prince William of Wales,if a daughter,
:> :> :> yielding place to her eldest younger brother.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> I certainly would want her given the royal title
:> :> :> that would be her due if male,if she is born in
:> :> :> the present reign,though!
:> :> :>
:> :> : You seem to make a good argument as to why slavery, the death penalty,
:> :> : crucifiction or child prostitution, should never have been abolished.
:> :> No...they have always been wrong,
:> :> that is what justified their abolition.
:> : Nope. They were only though immoral at a particular point in time. From
:> : then on they may well have been thought to have been wrong along, but
:> : that is a different argument.
:> It is the entire point.
: I know it is *your* point, but it cannot be the entire point.
:> Morals are morals ONLY because they are INDEPENDENT
:> of whether or not they are believed.
: Morals cannot be independent from belief. If the whole human race died
: out tomorrow, morals are not going to be found sitting down to
: breakfast the next morning.
They will sit down for breakfast every morning until another
species arises to seek them out where they will always be...
: Morals can only exist if there is someone to believe in them and
: consequently new ones can be created and old ones dispatched at human
No...Newton did not create physics and theologians
did not create God.
:> A moral argument is based on its being irrelevant if one thinks
:> something is right.
:> :> : The concept of what is just or unjust changes over time and it is
:> :> : correct that laws are changed to reflect this.
:> :> What is legal or illegal changes over time as people attempt
:> :> to better approximate the fact of what is eternally just or
:> :> unjust.
:> :> Morals derive their validity from their absolute inability
:> :> to "change with the times"!
:> : Nope. They largely derive from religious teachings. If you were right,
:> : no new religions would ever have come into being and different
:> : religions, sects and denominations would never exist. They clearly do
:> : and they offer different moral teachings, often quite opposed to each
:> : other.
:> On the contrary...religions come into being based on different
:> perceptions on what the sole possible set of valid morals is.
:> To the extent that any religion errs it is incumbent on those
:> who sense its error to start another.
: A particular group may start another sect, religion or denomination,
: but that doen't necessarily mean that the existing religion dissappears
: or that its morals are replaced either. The morality of both often
: exist, side by side, and compete with each other. Roman Catholicism may
: have been deemed morally bankrupt by founding Protestants, but its
: teachings nor its set of morals haven't dissapeared. Indeed, RC has
There is only one set of morals and various people approximate
them with differing degrees of accuracy.
:> Just as there is a path to God for every person born,
:> but only one God at the end of all the paths,morality
:> is an inalterable unity that men perceive like the blind
:> men and the elephant.When we ascertain something about it
:> that we did not know,it doesn't mean any part of it has changed.
:> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
:> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.