Good catch! Apparently this disturbing system of "morality" also defaults to a judgement of "good" in cases where a judgement can't be made.<br><br>Paul<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Thomas Bitterman <<a href="mailto:tom@bitterman.net">tom@bitterman.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d">On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 2:11 PM, b sharp <<a href="mailto:bsharporflat@hotmail.com" target="_blank">bsharporflat@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div><div class="Ih2E3d"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
But, since we are dealing with a work of fiction I'll continue to play Angel's Advocate. I'll again state that we are unqualified to judge Hierogrammates and their actions because we don't have the depth and breadth of foresight to do so.</blockquote>
</div><br></div>If we cannot judge somebody's actions, what basis do we have for saying the actions (or the person) are good?<br><br>Enamel<br><br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Urth Mailing List<br>
To post, write <a href="mailto:urth@urth.net">urth@urth.net</a><br>
Subscription/information: <a href="http://www.urth.net" target="_blank">http://www.urth.net</a><br></blockquote></div>