Mike Wilcox wrote:
> Richard J wrote:
>
>
>>Édouard Dugas wrote:
>>
>>>"Omphalos" a écrit dans le message de
>>>news:Xns93A7C92A3CDB1omphalos@65.32.1.8...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri 27 Jun 2003 07:29:26p, "Édouard Dugas"
>>>>wrote in news:sr4La.6199$Fe3.998308@news20.bellglobal.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>How do you know that society is moving towards a higher standard?
>>>>>>>What is the standard by which you judge society by?
>>>>>>
>>>>>Easy... you check to see if they perpetuate barbaric customs or if
>>>>>they do away with them.
>>>>
>>>>What determines what customs are barbaric and which ones are not?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>When you're in doubt, just ask me.
>>>
>>>ED
>>>
>>
>>It's a valid question, Ed. What makes anyone's idea of morality
>>superior to anyone else's? Or do you subscribe to the old idea that the
>>real measure of a man's intelligence is how much he agrees with you?
>>
>>Teflon
>
>
> The real test of any society is how it's lowest members are treated.
>
>
>
> Mike Wilcox
>
>
>
I guess so. But that wasn't the question. The question was, what makes
on set of societal mores and morals superior to another. Doesn't each
society have the right to determine on their own what is correct for them?
From the Amnesty International World Report 2003:
"There were concerns about police accountability and refugee protection."
" There was concern that a referendum regarding the negotiation of land
claims, conducted by the provincial government in British Columbia,
implied a willingness to abrogate existing rights of indigenous peoples
under international and national law."
Yep, I guess we can judge a society by how they treat the lowest in
their society.
Teflon
|
