-- or --

I'm hijacking this thread.  Do what I say and nobody will get hurt.

"Objective morality": more dangerous words have never been spoken.

Religionists usually speak in terms of absolutes (if they don't, you should check your wallet. They're trying to get away with something).  There may be some things upon which we all agree are either good or bad, behavior-wise.  But we also know that those judgments are subject to analysis of the situation at hand.  Yes, I'm talking about that ideological realm that right-wingers hate above all others, situational ethics.

We might agree that "Torture is always bad."  Still, the hypocrites have a point when they suggest that torturing someone might be a good idea if it can save lots of lives.  Fortunately, situational ethics makes it clear that torturing people is never a good idea.  Besides, we have generally agreed that "torture is always bad."  I move that we revisit the question only on a vote with a 2/3 majority.

We might agree that killing a baby is always bad.  But that mother whose baby's crying is endangering a group of people who are hiding from an enemy who wants to kill them may smother her baby to save the lives of the others.  She'll suffer terribly for the rest of her life.  But amidst her doubts, she'll believe that she did the right thing -- and her opinion is and was the only one that matters.  Could anyone be qualified to judge her?

Is there objective beauty?  Is there objective morality?  Philosophers have been arguing about that forever.  My thinking is that since they haven't been able to prove their existence yet, they probably don't exist.  Show me someone who is ugly and I'll show you their beauty -- you can start with Hitler, if you like:  He really did want Eva Braun to be happy.  That's love.

But I hadn't heard that quote from good ol' Tom.  Thanks for providing it.