Comment: Immoral by what standard?

(See in situ)


Immoral by what standard?

Whatever your Mom & Dad taught you as a child?
Whatever your Holy Book says? (And one Holy Book is a better standard than all others -- why, exactly?)
Whatever politicians order you to do? (It's "The Law!")
Or something you cooked up yourself?

Morality is a choice. It is not "optional," because every human being needs SOME moral standard to make the choices he faces every day of his life. But which moral standard one adopts is open to our free will.

People who adopt the non-aggression principle or some variant of the Golden Rule as their moral compass in their dealings with others may all agree that initiating coercion against peaceable folk cannot be morally justified. They are not, however, likely to agree that the use of retaliatory force against an aggressor is a bad thing.

You seem to be paying a lot of attention to the name you put on such retaliatory action. Does it really make a difference if you call it revolution or rebellion or self-defense? Actions taken to remove a tyrant can easily be justified; the imposition of some new "ruler" cannot. Overthrowing a government is a good thing. Establishing a new one -- not.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...