<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:Courier New,courier,monaco,monospace,sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><div>I find it odd that some supporters of individual freedom and personal responsibility rail against individual moral compasses. Usually this is because they defer responsibility to some other authority to say what is right or wrong rather than determining it by personal experience and reflection.<br><br>moral absolutism: What is right or wrong is not dependent on the situation or the outcome. It's always right or wrong.<br>moral objectivism: What's right for me is right for you. What's wrong for me is wrong for you.<br>moral relativism: What is right or wrong depends on the circumstances.<br><br>Considering that morality is a human construct, it's by definition relative (to the human experience). Take away humans, and life would go on without ethical
motivations.<br><br>Show me one example where an accredited teacher is unable to tell a student that 0 != 1 or any other inarguable fact? (BTW I recommend reading up on the history of the zero. It's quite fascinating.) Last I checked, a teacher's responsibility is to correct students' understanding. Sounds to me as a veiled attack on the (public) education system. If you're arguing that educators have less authority over children, that comes as no surprise considering that authority has been eroded by Think-Of-The-Children and Parents-Always-Know-Best crusaders from the left and right.<br><br>"Moral relativism is destroying any chance we have or remaining a civil society." Doubtful. Moral absolutism is more authoritarian and leads to a black and white world. There's no need to think because something is either right or wrong. You're either with us or against us. Boy, that sounds familiar; catch
phrase of the decade? With moral relativism you actually have to take the situation into
account. (But thinking is hard! /sarcasm) Not only is the world full of shades of gray, but it is actually filled with a spectrum of color. Otherwise, it'd be a rather drab place to live in.<br><br><span><a target="_blank" href="http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html">http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html</a></span><br><br>Also considering the US has the highest incarceration rate of any nation, I don't thing we coddle criminals. We arguably have a policy of no tolerance (even for non-violent offenses that do not infringe on the rights of others) and a policy of paying money to keep our problems out of sight---five figures per inmate. I'd even argue that we're a worse off civilization for it.<br><br><span><a target="_blank" href="http://www.onlineeducation.net/incarceration_usa/">http://www.onlineeducation.net/incarceration_usa/</a></span><br><br>Prosecuting corporations
shouldn't even be possible because of the idea of corporate personhood is a fallacy. However, even if you do go after corporate (or political) leaders, even though ideally no one is above the law, in actual practice, being in a position to influence/write laws or being an insider affords a person some privilege, except in the face of overwhelming public backlash. Unfortunately, above a certain level of power, justice isn't all that blind, but relative to other judicial systems, the US is probably fairer than most.<br></div><div style="font-family: Courier New,courier,monaco,monospace,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> "dennisjperkins@comcast.net" <dennisjperkins@comcast.net><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> CLUE talk
<clue-talk@cluedenver.org><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Thu, December 10, 2009 11:59:35 AM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [clue-talk] saving money with Linux<br></font><br>
<style type="text/css">p {margin:0;}</style><div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>----- Original Message -----<br>From: grant@amadensor.com<br>To: "CLUE talk" <clue-talk@cluedenver.org><br>Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 11:22:44 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain<br>Subject: Re: [clue-talk] saving money with Linux<br><br>> Yes, but only in realities where:<br>><br>> right = wrong<br>> AND<br>> 0 = 1<br>I am sorry, Roy, didn't you hear. The ideas of ethically right and wrong<br>are outdated concepts only held by the fringe right wing. Also, you<br>cannot tell a student that 0 != 1 because you might hurt his feelings. <br>Political correctness is the only thing that matters any more.<br><br>In a culture that says there is no wrong answer an coddles criminals, how<br>can we expect to enforce ethics that only go against the rights of a<br>large, wealthy corporation that has been
proven in court to be unethical<br>itself. Moral relativism is destroying any chance we have or remaining a<br>civil society.<br><br>_______________________________________________<br><br>I'm afraid most of the country didn't get the memo about moral relativism, even if the schools are trying their worst to ram it into students' heads.<br><br>How can you have political correctness in a democracy that has freedom of speech? PC is morally bankrupt.<br></div></div></div>
<!-- cg32.c4.mail.gq1.yahoo.com compressed/chunked Fri Dec 4 09:51:20 PST 2009 -->
</div><br>
</body></html>