On 18 Oct 1995, Willard Jule wrote:
> Now "to end the refrain, thrust home," I am going to make a bold
> statement that may elicit some strong emotional responses. I suggest that
> one of the most liberating things we can do for ourselves and our fellow
> man is to drop words (and the associated concepts) like should, oughta,
> must, right, wrong, good, bad (in the moral sense) from our vocabulary.
In the kinds of contexts you alluded to earlier in your post, yes. In
general, no. G.K.Chesterton somewhere observed that where _real_ moral
discussion weakens, moral values begin to attach to trivia. I think
you've certainly identified such an area. We have all seen, I'm sure,
instances of this: a meeting collapses into chaotic recriminations because
somebody imported evaluative language too easily, too glibly,
thoughtlessly.
But striking moral terms out of the language entirely, making it
effectively impossible to discuss right and wrong where "right" and
"wrong", "good" and "evil" are the correct names of the issues involved --
that seems an extreme measure.
Impractical, even.
> Replace them with awareness of the principles cited above and take
> conscious responsibility to choose our actions in the context of these
> principles.
Again, in the contexts this thread had been concerned with, my
enthusiastic agreement. Perhaps you didn't mean your recommendation to be
taken as generally as I took it?
--
Regards
Jim Michmerhuizen jamzen@world.std.com
web residence at http://world.std.com/~jamzen/
...........................................................................
. . . . There are far *fewer* things in heaven and earth, Horatio, . . . .
. . . . . than are dreamt of in your philosophy... . . | _ .