n article <RFm58.24953$f53.1185453@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Ian

MacLennan" <ianmaclennan@alumni.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

> "Heathen Bastard" <heathen_bastard@heathenbastard.com> wrote in message

> news:heathen_bastard-CECA35.01325927012002@news.newsguy.com...

> > In article <JTD48.24569$bu6.4570486@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Ian

> > MacLennan" <ianmaclennan@alumni.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

> >

> > > This is one thing I have never understood... if you claim that

> > > morals are relative then what right do you have to enforce yours on

> > > me? That is to say, if you think that murder is wrong and I don't,

> > > then why can't I murder?

> >

> > You can, by all means. But I may think that the only way to stop you

> > is

> > to retaliate - and you may decide that it's not worth the risk.

> > Morality is *always* relative. People don't act from morals anyway -

> > in

> > some form or another they act from self-interest - always.

> >

>

> So you're saying might is right?

Not at all. Societal pressures *do* have a bearing on this.

> So therefore there was nothing

> immoral about what Osama Bin Laden did,

If he did do it, then *he* certainly doesn't think it's immoral. My

opinions on the matter mean exactly squat to him.

> there was nothing immoral

> with German Nazism and there was nothing immoral about the crusades?

Well, *I* think so, but I am in no position to force my ethics on anyone

outside my immediate control. The people committing those acts thought

they were moral - and how are you going to *prove* them wrong? all you

have is you *own* sense of right & wrong, and the ability to act on that

sense. How you choose to act is guided by your own self-interest,

whatever you decide it to be.

> OR, you are saying that morality is irrelevant because nobody pays

> attention to it anyway and instead acts only out of self-interest.

Morality is a n obfuscatory nonword. It is used to describe something

internal to a person's psychology as an external force - much in the way

gamblers attempt to use statistics of past numbers to predict future

ones.

<later in the thread>

> I'm not quite seeing your analogy... and you expand on it? Are you

> saying

> that the concept of morality is irrelevant?

Yep. That's exactly it. "Morality" assumes that the specific "moral

rule" is self-evident - and in no case is it (if you think so, then you

need to look at your own cultural conditioning).

Ethics are a more logical (and as far as I can tell, much more

realistic) way of looking at the rules that we invoke to govern our own

behavior.