83571

神经网络昆斯林的新闻组分类2006

Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu talk.abortion:120555 alt.atheism:53109 talk.religion.misc:83571
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.edu!kmr4
From: [e-mail] (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 23:04:44 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <1qkhju$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <1qkoel$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu

In article <1qkoel$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:

>Good question, my point was that a world with truth is better than a world
>with falsehood.  A world in which it were possible to say "yes, I am
>holding a Jew" (the truth) and you, me, the Jew, and the SS guy all sit
>down to crack open a bottle of whiskey is better than the grim alternatives 
>you present. Obviously, this is not possible, and the best alternative seems
>to be to lie.  That's because other values are involved, such as life.
>Now that IS just my opinion - don't confuse the claim 'objective morality
>exists' with the claim 'I have a lock on morals'.

	So then, it is not objectively better to tell the truth. There are 
some subjective situations within which, it is better to lie.


	I agree that it is my subjective opinion that a world without SS 
troops and the like would be better. It is also when using certain systems 
to judge the situations, such as unitarianism, that it is objectively better.


---

   Only when the Sun starts to orbit the Earth will I accept the Bible.