IT WAS a timely reminder, albeit an overdue decision, when Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong remarked in last Thursday's article, 'Lawyers can't hold money from clients', that the Law Society had finally 'seen the light'. The decision was to ban lawyers from holding such funds.

Full Story

"genuine religious leaders"... :)

Right and wrong are as clear as light and dark. Morals are never relative. There are no shades of grey when one's heart is as bright as the noon day.

This is CRAP... and imo, also one of the most dangerous thing that anyone can say. Fanatics and extremists think the same way.

I think George Lim raises a pertinent point.

In this pluralistic world however, my right may not be your right. And to impose my right on another person, the other person can always protest and say 'well, its your right but not my right'.

The consequences of this type of behaviour is evident for all to see. However I don't believe they would have learned their lessons, just as a baby would never learn any lessons if left on its own.

If the application of this type of behaviour pushed to the extreme, what we would get is anarchy and societal breakdown.

An example of #4 would be #3.

Nothing new under the sun here. George Lim, like some religious leaders I have read about, is just using the opportunity that bad news offers to spread his gospel ideas.

This tactic was used even by the doomsday religious groups during the Great Depression. Since the early history of men, it has been frequently used by them whenever there's a disaster - hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis etc. In fact, it is said that early Christians thought that the end of the world was near when the Romans persecuted them. The chapter Revelation in the bible was said to have written during this time of doom and gloom.

Also, morals are relative. Obviously, Geroge Lim hasn't realised it, as he appears to live in a 'black-and-white' world. Take, for instance, some people feel that it's right to have the death penalty for dangerous criminals, while others feel that it's immoral to take a life, no matter how bad a criminal is. These people would rather give these criminals the life sentence.

Even in ancient China, where its ancient people were known to have strict Confucian morals, the binding of women's feet was perfectly alright for them, while to others not accustomed to their culture, it might seem immoral to 'deform' someone else's feet. And even among the followers of Abrahamic religions, morals vary.

To some Muslims in certain Islamic countries, polygamy is acceptable. To some Christian denominations, it is not.

Both absolutists and relativists can be dangerous if extreme. As far as I know and don't, there are natural constraints/'laws' : For instance, animals when sexually mature are chased off family-groups/territory to start their own families presumably to obviate incest. Probably to strengthen the species' gene pool rather than for 'morality' in the humanly-constructed sense.

This sexual 'moral' started 'immorally' when the first humans (Adam and Eve were siblings?) had to multiply humanity incestuously - with/through their kids/grandkids. Genetic diversity being a luxury they and God couldn't afford at the outset.

It seem that what is once wrong had become right and vice versa. Thus this layperson had couple of questions.

Who decides what is right and wrong? Is it the majority or is it the group that is most vocal?

#7
yep Absolutist no good. Example is the letter writer. maybe second example is 4. since he disagree with me. =)

#9

Huh?? tell me in plain english..who decide? The majority or the most vocal??

(can't really think 2dy..trying to reduce intake of coffee.so help out..:P)