One of your smokier smoke screens there, Pete. LOL. However, if you insist upon rooting out and selecting the nits ... The ethical position of great swathes of the USA on guns and gun ownership is that it is a good thing. The family of that poor child were certainly acting ethically and most likely morally, too. The gun instructor was certainly acting ethically and presumably in accordance with his own moral code. Obviously, ethics and morals alike are no defence against overwhelming stupidity, as can be seen from this sad instance. And naturally, arguing that your particular stand on a moral issue is correct simply on the basis that you are a moral absolutist is somewhat, ah, self-referential, to say the least.
Oh Pete you don't half spout some shite... I still refute your statement because it is plain wrong, I agree that in this case it could be seen as abuse but that was not your initial statement! A fact you seem to be trying to gloss over...
Indeed, you are absolutely right. Some groups of people adhere to different ethical codes, or claim to, and therefore claim that their behaviour is moral provided it conforms to their own code. The trouble is, if this is allowed to be legitimate how far down the road should you go? The Mafia, or Al Qaeda, or the Roman Catholic Church, or the Nazi Party all have their own codes of ethics as they see them, which take a variety of attitudes to murder, rape, child abuse, and the oppression of women, among many other things. Must we judge each of them on their own terms, then? My preferred approach is to look first to sources like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the English common law. These are very widely subscribed to, and are in broadly similar terms. In my view, the further away from these kinds of sources the ethical position of a group strays, the less legitimate it becomes. The most egregious cases have no legitimacy at all, and then we are simply dealing with criminals. But perhaps you don't agree ...
Therein lies the difficulty, where different systems of values are compared. If I had the answer to that conundrum, I would be earning a fabulous salary working as a consultant for the U.N. Alas ... The answer to the question, "How far done the road do you go?" varies, as always, depending on how big the other culture's armed forces are, or how much wealth the culture creates for your own economy. Hence, harsh words for Russia's various crimes against the Ukraine, a certain amount of quiet muttering against China's crimes against human rights and barely a whisper of discontent with regard to Saudi Arabia's human rights record. In the case of the 9 nine year old who shot her gun instructor, I would consider this the result of rank stupidity and would file it under "WTF did you THINK was going to happen?" ... not under "Child Abuse". But that is my opinion - oddly, it is shared by most people I have spoken to about this matter. No argument here, broadly speaking. Perhaps. Perhaps my Ducati is made from cheese. What do you think?
Why not just apply the law as it does in this country or others that have to without applying it to others, that have clearly some space to argue but dont due to their clout Pete ?.............................
I have just read this sentence four times, and I still have no idea what point you are trying to make, if any. Would you care to clarify?
