Yes, America needs to exert a good moral influence. Diplomacy should rule as much as possible. She has to do global thinking.
We can and must use force when necessary as in Libya and in Kosovo.
We must learn better when and when not to use force to help others.
Sen. Hagel is a thoughtful Republican about Iran. I favor him.
We must always avoid isolationism,pacifism but never be belligerentacting contrary to what others need. We did right in helping to expulse the Iraquis from Kuwait ,but erred grievously in ousting Saddam in the manner we did. We could have enable the Iraquis themselves to rid themselves of him and his two sons.
Free trade would help peace as FDR knew.
We must thus be pragmatic realists in foreign policy.
Any ideas for peace?
Monday, December 31, 2012
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Born or unborn
Note the consequennce.
The enforced-pregnancy folk would have a female continuously have the pain of being raped revisited! They gloss over that fact for their extreme idology.
They also don't want females to practice contraception. They are indeed misogynistic!
Of course, childten of rape are so glad to live! But they should not be for forcing other raped females to give birth.
Actually, we all have the problem that had matters been different, we would also not have lived. Events could have occurred to alter matters. Wars cause war brides. Had World WarII not have occurred, some Americans would not have lived as the war brought their mothesr and fathers together. Should they then begrudge diplomacy to prevent war that could bring others like themselves to be born?
Obviously,no! So, the children of rape victims should be for contraception and be pro-choice.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Monday, December 3, 2012
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Friday, October 26, 2012
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Monday, October 15, 2012
Moral realism
I plead for moral realism, one involving both objective morality and subjectivism.
Morality can be objective like science in being public and debatable. It notes sociological relativism but disowns moral relativism, but endorses situational morality.
My form is also subjective in being a version of wiserefelective subjectuvusn, the considered moral judgment that overrides mere wishes and tases.It however is itself objective in being [1] univesral, for everyone and [2] equitable.
Others might endorse one or the other component, but nevertheless both forms or my combined form establish morality as binding.
Its public openess stems from how one views consequences for sentient beings and the environment.To oppose it others depend on - consequences.
It is thus teleological and utilitarian .Yet, it endorses the categorical imperative, so a measure of deontology forms part of it, and rules and virtues stem from it.
It is hedonistic like Epicureanism-refined,
It is thus ecletic.
What ethic do you endorse?
We depend on our moral sense that we have to refine. It is an evolutionary product. We discern glimmers of morality in other anismals.
With Paul Kurtz, I plead for a planetary ethic- concern for all humanity, not just the "tribe."
Theistic ethics is just simple subjectivism, what misanthropes just made up in large part from their tastes and whims. It is egregious.
Thus it does no boon to claim that God ontologically ensures it! And to claim in order to overcome the Euthyprho, as Aquinas so attempts by maintaining that God's nature is good begs the question thereof. God speaks with a forked tongue-lo, the many contradictory theistic moralites!
In the hands of Lord Russell and others, it can be a positive boon.
Should theists use reason and facts for the good of people, then they are implicit humanists; we don't thus depend on theism for morality at all.
Morality can be objective like science in being public and debatable. It notes sociological relativism but disowns moral relativism, but endorses situational morality.
My form is also subjective in being a version of wiserefelective subjectuvusn, the considered moral judgment that overrides mere wishes and tases.It however is itself objective in being [1] univesral, for everyone and [2] equitable.
Others might endorse one or the other component, but nevertheless both forms or my combined form establish morality as binding.
Its public openess stems from how one views consequences for sentient beings and the environment.To oppose it others depend on - consequences.
It is thus teleological and utilitarian .Yet, it endorses the categorical imperative, so a measure of deontology forms part of it, and rules and virtues stem from it.
It is hedonistic like Epicureanism-refined,
It is thus ecletic.
What ethic do you endorse?
We depend on our moral sense that we have to refine. It is an evolutionary product. We discern glimmers of morality in other anismals.
With Paul Kurtz, I plead for a planetary ethic- concern for all humanity, not just the "tribe."
Theistic ethics is just simple subjectivism, what misanthropes just made up in large part from their tastes and whims. It is egregious.
Thus it does no boon to claim that God ontologically ensures it! And to claim in order to overcome the Euthyprho, as Aquinas so attempts by maintaining that God's nature is good begs the question thereof. God speaks with a forked tongue-lo, the many contradictory theistic moralites!
In the hands of Lord Russell and others, it can be a positive boon.
Should theists use reason and facts for the good of people, then they are implicit humanists; we don't thus depend on theism for morality at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)