Preface and Context: I was recently challenged by a blogging/email buddy to explain my atheism and I responded, rather reflexively, with curt answers. The questions were good ones, if not just a bit vehemently posed. This post is one of a short series that attempts to answer those inqueries in a more respectful way. Two disclaimers though: a) The questions were posed as a set and therefore have a certain coherency. At the risk of losing the thread, I have decided to separate the individual parts and offer a post on each. I have preserved the original order of the questions in the order of the posts if you choose to reconstruct the original query, b) I have, in some cases, edited the question to tone down the sarcasm. These qestions were posed in the heat of "battle", and in order to reduce the chance of my responding in kind and missing the important points, I have tried to responsibly restate the question in the spirit in which it was originally intended. Any mis-treatment in this respect is my own error and I apologize in advance, although I have made an effort to maintain my civility.
2c) What makes the morality of 'nighthawk' any better than the morality of Hitler?
I'm not sure whether this question deserves an answer, as the implications are repulsive. But, I said I would try to answer to the best of my abilities, so here goes...
I'm pretty sure that murder and torture are morally prohibited in most cultures. I'm also pretty sure that I'm not a murderer or a torturer (the quality of my writing being one possible exception). So, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that my morality is more socially acceptable than Hitler's was. Thus, it's "better". Saying any more than that is quibbling.
No comments:
Post a Comment