On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:47:05 +0100, Jane Vernon
 wrote:

>Linda Fox wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:03:45 +0100, Kim Andrews 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I believe the classic test is supposed to be, if one was sent back in 
>>> time and had the opportunity to kill Hitler, would you? I've never for a 
>>> moment doubted that I could do no such thing. Now, I know that for you 
>>> this is a particularly poignant example, and I chose it particularly to 
>>> show how much I feel that killing is wrong. 
>> 
>> Well, that's very laudable until you take a look at two other
>> "classic" examples. 
>> 
>Laudable?  Er, is it just me, or are you being somewhat judgemental 
>here?  I don't think Kim was trying to be laudable, or indeed tell 
>anyone else what they should think, I think she was just being open in 
>sharing her personal values.

No, I meant that "I could never kill" seems a very laudable philosophy
until you consider a couple of the ramifications. Maybe your
definition of laudable is different from mine (or is it laudible? Or
are they two different words with different meanings?)

I don't think a person _can_ be laudable, can they? Only a sentiment,
an aim, an intention.

lff.