'Mad Dog" Bertie Russell & Unitarianism

[James Kyllo]

>From Fr. Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell:  The Famous 1948 BBC Radio
Debate on the Existence of God


Copleston: I see no reason to suppose that an animal has a
consciousness or moral obligation; and we certainly don't regard an
animal as morally responsible for his acts of disobedience. But a man
has a consciousness of obligation and of moral values. I see no reason
to suppose that one could condition all men as one can "condition" an
animal, and I don't suppose you'd really want to do so even if one
could. If "behaviorism" were true, there would be no objective moral
distinction between the emperor Nero and St. Francis of Assisi. I
can't help feeling, Lord Russell, you know, that you regard the
conduct of the Commandant of Belsen as morally reprehensible, and that
you yourself would never under any circumstances act in that way, even
if you thought, or had reason to think, that possibly the balance of
the happiness of the human race might be increased through some people
being treated in that abominable manner.

Russell: No. I wouldn't imitate the conduct of a mad dog. The fact
that I wouldn't do it doesn't really bear on this question we're
discussing.


from: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm

> > > some reason(s) why TRP may have used the term "Mad Dog"
> > > w/r/t Bertrand Russell.

-- 
http://www.last.fm/user/Auto_Da_Fe
http://www.pop.nu/en/show_collection.asp?user=2412
http://www.librarything.com/profile/Auto_Da_Fe
http://www.thedetails.co.uk/