Re[2]: morality
Tue, 16 Jul 96 15:06:01 EST

I'm not sure of where this discussion started, or where it is going.
However, it sounds like some of these discussion points reflect what
little I know of Rouseou's "Social Contract" Theory. I do not think
I want to go down that road.

C.S. Lewis, on the other hand, has shown that there is a certain
"ethic" or moral code that is (or has been until recently) generally
accepted in all cultures. The details or boundaries of the ethics may
be somewhat different, but there seems to be a human "universal" core
ethic. That does not mean by any means that it was allways followed,
just that it was understood or accepted generally. (I believe it was
in the Aboliton of Man or Mere Christianity,- I don't have my library
handy) Couldn't the starting point for discussion of morality be this

Without a starting point, you can get into real difficulty with the
Nuremberg trials. From one point of view, they were "right" because
the Allies won, and Germany lost, that is If Germany had won or
negotiated a peace, no crimes, no trials. (try to translate that
concept into the "Balkans" today without real problems). This is
related to the idea that they were a legal way of punishing the
losser, (which is partially true - no Russians were tried for
essentially the same acts as some Germans(or their allies) were held).
Legally, every thing the accused did was legal. They made sure the
laws were changed first! With out some "universal" (we can call it
the "thumb print of God" in all men) you get into problems quickly.