Rugoz wrote:Do you want a medal?
This is actually relevant because there are people who call me a Nazi right in this very forum for having different takes on things.
I found the irony in the fact that I have a more liberal perspectie than apaprently you do.
It is perfectly reasonable to assume that people who grow up in a peaceful environment are more peaceful in nature, something we would generally consider to be a virtue. Of course they might be unfit to live in a conflict zone.
P.S. That doesn't mean people cannot change to a great extent if put in a different environment.
But I would say that even someone who is more inclined to violent conflict resolution may only be guilty of
believing something is necessary when it isn't.How can we call somebody immoral when they act violently out of a perceived necessity?
Besides, a lot of this morality can only be
really condemned if you subscribe to the idea that
theft really is morally wrong. I am not sure how easy it is to come up with such a universal declaration without God, or why you would want to subscribe to one if there is no God, other than the very tentative "Hey-hey, guys, I got lots of good stuff in my house because the economy is good; make it illegal to steal."
But if we are both tribesmen in the highlands with a long history of feuds & reasons to kill & steal from each other, I do not even know if a concept like "theft" can even exist between us. It's not really relevant in our lexicon.
Likewise, what does 'theft' mean to someone born into a home that survives off of less than $800 a year when he is "robbing" some elite who spends $800 on a Tuesday on new clothes without batting an eye..? In such systems, it is hard to fathom if we can make moral judgments at all about property; so how could there be a universal law about this without a God stating that there is something morally damaging about theft as an act, in a way that makes it a universal principle.