
Then we all live happily ever after. :-)

Seriously, if we all agreed on the circumstances we're in, I suspect we'd all
agree on the best course of action.  Unfortunately, I have no confidence that
such a situation will ever arise. 

Some of us think there's a big God in the sky, some don't.  Some think
they've been chosen by God, others disagree.  Some think they are infallible,
others think otherwise.  Until those disagreements over circumstances can be
ironed out, there's little hope of everyone agreeing.


Yes.  I think that, for example, only a vanishingly small number of people
would hold that there's a frame of reference in which gassing six million
Jews is good.  So that's probably about as close to an objective moral value
as I've encountered in my life so far.


Well, I think your example's poor.  If the bomb's in Iraq, for example, and
was dropped by an American plane, many people would hold that it was a moral
act.


Hmm.  So these moral values have a perceptible physical presence?


Right, and the chain ends right there.  The buck stops with me.  It's not an
infinite regress.


Right.  The key point, however, is that there are vanishingly few of these
moral issues where we can get 99.9% of people to agree on the outcome for all
frames of reference (and agree on the frames of reference...)


I can't manage either.  Killing Hitler using a car bomb would have been a
terrorist act, but I have to admit that I couldn't exactly condemn it. 
Although there are tricky philosophical issues to do with hindsight...


I think that circumstances have already arisen where terrorism would have
been better than peace.  Better in terms of numbers of innocent people
killed.  Assuming it was successful terrorism, of course.
