So the Bush White House endeavors to send out a nice, simple, inclusive holiday card. No different than millions of Americans of all religions send out.
And what happens? The extreme religious right is offended. Hëll, let’s not even call them the extreme religious right, because that makes it sound like extremist Jews, Muslims, Shintoists, etc., are all on the same page. Let’s call it what it is: Extremist Christians.
Here’s the fascinating thing about Extremists: They’re all the same. The philosophy of Extremist Christians is fundamentally no different than, say, that of Extremist Muslims. They believe in the same things: Exclusionary thinking. Intolerance. Ignoring fundamental lessons of their own faith when it runs afoul of extremist thinking. Where is the philosophy of Christian charity and understanding? Where is the writings in the Koran specifically forbidding the killing of innocents? They don’t serve the Extremist viewpoint of exclusion and intolerance and thus are cast aside.
They only differ in degrees of their actions. Some chop off the heads of helpless victims. Others blow up abortion clinics.
And the most consistent link is that trying to accommodate them never, ever works. That’s what Bush is discovering now, having staked his political star to the whims of the Extremists. It’s insufficient for Extremists that eighty percent of this country celebrates Christmas. Instead the ONLY acceptable greeting at this time of year is “Merry Christmas” rather than something inclusive such as “Happy holidays.” It’s insufficient for Extremists that there is already an implicit lack of separation of church and state around the holidays (the government shuts down for Christmas. You see the government shutting down for Yom Kippur? For Ramadan?) They want an EXplicit lack of separation by having the official greeting card from the White House be in celebration of Christmas only.
It’s never enough for Extremists. Never enough. Because the only thing that will really satisfy them–whether they’re walking bombs or just bombasts–is if everyone thinks just like them, believes just like them, and wants the same things as them. Which is never, ever going to happen, which is why they will never, ever be satisfied. Bush has been trying to appease them and hopefully even he is now realizing that it’s hopeless.
One is left shaking one’s head at a people who are claiming their holiday, their very beliefs, are being threatened. No. When Romans were throwing them to the lions, THEN their beliefs were being threatened. Here, in this country, their core philosophies have complete dominance over just about every aspect of life in this country.
And it’s not enough.
When dealing with Extremists and terrorists…it never is.
PAD
• 
Very funny Bill. I’ve been reading up on some moral philosophy and I remembered why I didn’t continue with it after the BA: at a certain point it become very technical.
In any case, I tend to think that human society as a whole has some shared moral principles. So that most oral arguments are not about the basic idea but about the specific circumstances. I also think that these principles are grounded in objective reasoning, namely a shared concept of harm which is based on humans having a similar sensation. Which means that a killer and his victim do agree that dying is a form of harm, and that therefore killing is absolutely immoral. So I’mnot a moral relativist in the sense that I think that a murderer’s morality is equaly valid as his victim.
But, on the other hand, I don’t believe there is any principle (such as the law of god or physics or logic) that can determine that killing is wrong in an absolute sense, other than the fact that we all have a shared idea of harm more or less. So at the end killing is wrong only in so far as humans perceive it to be wrong.
“The mind embraces all the nobler aspirations, like poetry and philosophy, but the body has all the fun.”
Well, a wag of my finger to Woody Allen! Especially for someone who’s comedy can be so..errr….intellectual. Certainly one of the most important premises of existentialism is that the pleasures of the mind can be at last as great at those of the body. And here I was thinking that Woody was considered (in some circles) an Existentialist!
Although, there is the distinct possibility I am severely overanalyzing the entire section….
Nahhhh..THAT could never happen…
I wrote: I’m basing it on the wager that I can enumerate certain statments that are true for all people in all times. If nobody can falsify some or any of these statements (and I notice nobody has chosen to refute any of them) then I feel confident that I have, indeed, identified moral “facts.”
Micha responded, You are begging the question.
Which question? Am I not allowed to define my own claim? Must I only address the issues you wish to be addressed, in the manner you prefer them to be addressed? I notice that nobody has taken me up on my wager, so please excuse me if I think at least part of my claim is as irrefutable as I believe it to be. (E.g., name one circumstance in the history of mankind where a forcible rape has been morally just. Just one.)
We need to take a step back. This whole discussion started with the question of what could be the basis of moral principles? And the argument was made that without god to validate moral principles — i.e. for anyone who has a naturalistic view of reality — nothing but complete moral relativism can exist.
Yes, the claim was made. But I didn’t make it, or endorse it. Tim claimed that morality is possible even without a belief in God, and I agree with him. Indeed, Kant’s entire moral philosophy was designed as a way to replicate traditional Christian morality without requiring an epiphany as its basis. I think that Kant was on the right track: I think that there is at least some form of universal morality.
The list of moral principles you give seems to be based on a scientific/observational basis. That is either history or anthroplology = all human societies have these principles, or a naturalistic basis = it is in human nature to have these principles, though you have not spoken of natural law in general.
I’m obviously not relying upon anthropology as you describe it, because I’ve said several times now in quite clear language that social conditions are among the things that can be adjudged morally repugnant, and that some things are wrong even if they are broadly accepted. Natural law is a closer label, because I do in fact beleive that ethics derive in large part from man’s nature as a free and intelligent creature.
I’m not clear if you dislike Sartre for his actions and opinions on political questions or the fact that according to his philosophy moral decision is made by individuals in given circumstances. If not, than who would make moral decisions? Should we leave it to qualified anthroplogists, historians, or biologists to do so?
Well, you’re starting off with a false dichotomy. I don’t like or dislike Sartre. He died when I was seven. I never met the man. My problem with him is that he was the writer of morally bankrupt philosophy. The idea that moral decisions are made by moral actors is not unique to Sartre.
Moral decisions should be made by the same people who make driving decisions, policing decisions, parenting decisions, and nearly any other decision that affects or could affect other people: whoever is engaged in the activity at the time. (If you’re going to set me up with a straw man, at least make it a plausible straw man, for God’s sake. Nobody who thinks what you’re trying to suggest that I think would have the mental capacity to type.) My claim, in very small words so everyone will understand it, is merely this: 1) Many actions can be evaluated as being either moral or immoral, and the evaluation can either be conducted in advance (by the person considering the action) or retrospectively (by observers). 2) Many of these moral evaluations do not depend on the identity or background of the actor or the situtation he finds himself in; many actions are good or bad in and of themselves, without regard to circumstances.
Sartre based his morality on the philosophical observation that moral choice rests in individual humans, which he calls freedom. The result of that view seems to be not moral relativism but the moral principle of freedom. He would probably oppose slavery and rape too. Regretably, I know very little of Sartre.
Or of philosophy, or of… I’m sorry, that’s beneath me. Not sufficiently beneath me to delete it, but beneath me nonetheless. (See how easy it is for someone to make a moral decision that can be judged by others? Come on, raise your hand if your first reaction upon reading that seemingly gratuitous insult was to say, “Well, David was being true to himself…” Yeah, that’s my point exactly. My argument is that people not only do judge others based on external standards of ethics, but that we should do so. We can even have an interesting discussion regarding whether it was appropriate for me to insult someone at random just to make a point for “the greater good.” I’ve already endorsed the concept of values pluralism– that sometimes principles can be in conflict with one another. As long as we all agree that the conflicting principles really and truly exist, I’m happy.)
As for his politics. I believe he wrote about/against antisemitism, and was also vocal about the War in Algeria. He could not have spoken about the Holocaust until after the war, since the Holocaust proper only started after France was conquered. About Communism: the two watershed events of communists in the West happened in the mid-50s: the revelation of Stalin’s crimes and the the subduing of an uprising in Hungary by tthe Soviets. I know this caused a break among communists, I do not know where Sartre stood. If Sartre supported freedom and continued to support a regime that was oppressive that would be bad faith.
I’m really uncomfortable with the assumption on this thread that “inconsistent logic” = “bad faith.” I don’t think that’s what Sartre meant with the term.
But you’re the second person who’s missed my point about the Holocaust. Of course he could have only talked about that after the war. During the war he did his talking about the Nazis in Resistance newspapers, and through 1945 at the latest, and probably through 1946, he’d have known only (through personal experience living in two Nazi-dominated countries) that the Nazis were bad without knowing all the specifics. But he lived 35 years after the war ended. Where’s his magnum opus addressing group mentality, mob violence, fascism, racism, or really any moral precept beyond “authenticity?” Hannah Arendt couldn’t explain the banality of evil, but at least she saw it and named it. (In 1961, mind, well after the end of the war.) I’m not claiming that Sartre was under an affirmative duty to discuss the evils of his time, although as France’s most eminent intellectual he could have done some good. But I think it’s laughable to say his philosophy includes a system of morals when it has a hole that big.
I will not hold against him his opinions about Munich.
Bloody hëll. I will. Or at least I would if he were still alive causing trouble, which, as I’ve mentioned, he is not.
As an Israeli I am familiar with the state of mind. It requires three partially true assumptions:
a. That the Palestinians were fighting for their freedom.
b. That the use of violence is justified in the fight for freedom.
c. That the objective of the Palestinians in that event was not to kill innocents.
In a sense, Sartre seems to have repeated his mistake with communism in blindly supporting somebody just because they seemed to be waving the flag of freedom.
Actually, I think your last statement is exactly what Sartre was doing. From what I’ve read, it was an ongoing pattern for him: as long as the “oppressors” (a term which begs various questions) were the ones taking the punishment, he didn’t much care what means the “oppressed” (see note re: “oppressor”) employed. I actually think at least part of his point in the letter was to call the French press hypocrites, for decrying the Munich terror attack when they were generally sympathetic to the Algerian insurgents who employed basically similar means. A fair point, but the problem that I see is that Sartre was pretty cool with both of them. Consistency isn’t always a good thing. In Sartre’s case it just means he’s wrong a lot.
Dr. Johnson’s response to Berkley is not good if you think that the philosophical discussion on ontology and epistemology was worthwhile. It is not an anser to it as much as a claim that the discussion itself is silly. I find the discussion interesting and important. there is a relation between this discussion and the moral philosophy called utiliterianism, from which the idea of harm as a moral principle is derived.
In my case, it was a claim that James’s response was silly. I made the argument that Sartre focused on minutiae rather than vast, important concepts, and James responded with the argument that sometimes arguing minutiae can lead to broader understanding. This is true, but Sartre never took a shot at the broader understanding, instead focusing on the authenticity of the individual rather than the individual’s place in a larger, if existentially meaningless, system, so I didn’t think his point really addressed the issue it was meant to address. Moreover, the example he specifically cited was useful for an epistemological insight but inapposite for a discussion of ethics. My comment was meant much the way that I assume Johnson’s was: “Can we move along to the next, more pressing issue, please?”
Besides, my true self has a little bit of a snide streak, and I was only being true to myself. Can’t we all just appreciate my good faith?
And I’m still not convinced that Sartre’s philosophy actually embraced the utilitarianism everyone keeps ascribing to it. I’ll shut up about that if someone can cite an example in Sartre’s own works, but until then I’ll assume that some people are interpolating a concept that isn’t fairly present. Please, someone, show me the underappreciated underlying morality to Sartre’s philosophy. I beg.
For Pat Boone to sing anything by Hendrix (and probably many others in the list of great rock musicians) is absolutly immoral.
Wait, does that mean that aesthetics are an appropriate basis for moral evaluation again? Can I indict someone because he’s ugly and has stupid hair? Or engages in a form of sex that I find gross and repugnant? (I suspect you were making a joke, but I didn’t find it to be a very funny one. That, unlike ethics, is a question of personal taste.)
Which means that a killer and his victim do agree that dying is a form of harm, and that therefore killing is absolutely immoral. So I’mnot a moral relativist in the sense that I think that a murderer’s morality is equaly valid as his victim.
The difference of course being that the killer thinks that killing is generally immoral but that it’s okay for him to do it anyway, at least in this particular circumstance, whereas his victim most likely thinks that killing is both generally immoral and particularly immoral right now. Unlike you, I believe that only one of them is right.
But, on the other hand, I don’t believe there is any principle (such as the law of god or physics or logic) that can determine that killing is wrong in an absolute sense, other than the fact that we all have a shared idea of harm more or less. So at the end killing is wrong only in so far as humans perceive it to be wrong.
Okay, here is where James’s “Is red red?” game comes into play. Killing is wrong only insofar as human perceive it to be wrong in precisely the same way that red is red only insofar as people perceive it to be red. Light still has the same range of wavelengths whether there is anyone to perceive them or not, but the concept of “red” (or for that matter the concept of “light”) only exists when there is a human mind to frame the concepts. Similarly, an object hitting another object at 1200 feet per second is physics; only when the first object is a bullet fired at a person, who is the second object, by yet another person who is angry, does physics gain a moral component. In an arid, depopulated desert there is no morality because there is nobody to exploit or be exploited.
Wow, we actually did get into epistemology.
Can I indict someone because he’s ugly and has stupid hair?
Depends. I probably should have been jailed for some of the haircuts that I had in high school. How my sisters ever let me leave the house looking like that is beyond me.
I probably should have been jailed for some of the haircuts that I had in high school. How my sisters ever let me leave the house looking like that is beyond me.
Because that’s what siblings are for. The fact that you made yourself the object of mockery only saved them the trouble. Such a good brother you were.
“Hey, now, don’t knock the Shat.”
Speaking of Shatner, I am watching the Twilight Zone episode he did.
No one plays a man thinking he is going crazy like the Shat.
“Theres a MAN out there!!”
Now if only he did cartoons..
“I TAWT I TAW a PUDdyTAt!”
I’m not sure how to do the bold for quotations. All of the quotations will be in quotation marks and from David’s long reply:
“Which question? Am I not allowed to define my own claim? Must I only address the issues you wish to be addressed, in the manner you prefer them to be addressed?”
The question was what makes moral principles valid? Obviously making a list of principles, even if you inscribe them on stone tablets, does not make them valid, even if the person making the list is you and not Sartre. It is still just a list. Not answering that question can therefore be considered begging the question. Your answer to the question was only implied, when you said that these principles were true for all people at all times, and I was not certain if that was the basis for the validity of the objective principles you were proposing.
“I notice that nobody has taken me up on my wager, so please excuse me if I think at least part of my claim is as irrefutable as I believe it to be. (E.g., name one circumstance in the history of mankind where a forcible rape has been morally just. Just one.)”
a) A few years ago a woman in Pakistan (I think) was sentenced to be raped, I think for the crime of adultary.
b) Although to the best of my knowledge most societies in history viewed rape negatively (I’m not an anthropologist, and my studies in history were not of that topic), our concept of rape has changed a lot due to feminism in the last 30 years, especially with regard to date-rape and rape by husbands of their wives. If you ever watched Hitchcock’s movie Frenzy (?), which is about a rapist, it has a scene portrayiong a woman excited about the idea of being raped. I believe today this scene would be considered tasteless.
c) I do not know if soldiers raping women during wars think of their acts as immoral or not. Nor do I know if rapists in general do. Rape is all too common. I think that most rapists do consider it immoral but alow other considerations to affect them, but I have no way of verifying it.
d) As was previously mentioned rapes are said to occur in Jails often, yet we still send people to Jails. Does that mean that we endorse the rape of criminals?
As for myself (just so I’m not accused by David of endorsing rape), the only reason I can give for my view that rape is immoral is the fact that it causes suffering to a person, and my own feeling that they should be spared that suffering. Yet I cannot produce any logical or scientific reason for that.
“Yes, the claim was made. But I didn’t make it, or endorse it. Tim claimed that morality is possible even without a belief in God, and I agree with him. Indeed, Kant’s entire moral philosophy was designed as a way to replicate traditional Christian morality without requiring an epiphany as its basis. I think that Kant was on the right track: I think that there is at least some form of universal morality.
I’m obviously not relying upon anthropology as you describe it, because I’ve said several times now in quite clear language that social conditions are among the things that can be adjudged morally repugnant, and that some things are wrong even if they are broadly accepted. Natural law is a closer label, because I do in fact beleive that ethics derive in large part from man’s nature as a free and intelligent creature.”
Tim based his morality on natural reality — the connection between humans and the environment. To which I replied by saying that one cannot deduce moral facts from natual/scientific facts. This subject was not persued further.
You have stated that you believe that there are moraly objective principles, and mentioned Kant once. I replied by writing something about Kant’s attempt to create a system of logical a priori morality. This also was not further discussed. Here you again refer to Kant, but you do not discuss the nature of his moral philosophy. Your argument in the most recent post refered to history, which is obviously not a priori. Also, to say that all human societies share a moral principle is an an anthropological argument. Now you seem to have clarified things a little, I think. Although I’m not sure if your answer to Robynn is that morality does not require god because it can be deduced logically (Kant) or a part of human (evolutionary?) nature.
“Well, you’re starting off with a false dichotomy. I don’t like or dislike Sartre. He died when I was seven. I never met the man. My problem with him is that he was the writer of morally bankrupt philosophy.”
I assume it would be clear that when I wrote that you dislike Sartre I meant you dislike his philosophy, his politics, and his fiction, not his haircut. But I appologize if it was not clear.
“The idea that moral decisions are made by moral actors is not unique to Sartre.”
The idea in question is whether morality exists independantly of people making moral judgement as objective entities or not. Obviously if it were based on scientific principles or logic or the word of god it would be. If it is based on human nature it could be considered as both objective and subjective.
“If you’re going to set me up with a straw man, at least make it a plausible straw man, for God’s sake. Nobody who thinks what you’re trying to suggest that I think would have the mental capacity to type.”
I was not setting up a strawman or attributing anything to you. However, I was not certain what was your opinion concerning the above question. If my wording was not clear I apologize.
It is reasonable to assume that if morality is objective, than moral decisions should be made by the people who have the best access and understandinb of that morality. However I did not claim that was your opinion as much as trying to develop the question.
“Or of philosophy, or of… I’m sorry, that’s beneath me. Not sufficiently beneath me to delete it, but beneath me nonetheless. (See how easy it is for someone to make a moral decision that can be judged by others? Come on, raise your hand if your first reaction upon reading that seemingly gratuitous insult was to say, “Well, David was being true to himself…” Yeah, that’s my point exactly. My argument is that people not only do judge others based on external standards of ethics, but that we should do so. We can even have an interesting discussion regarding whether it was appropriate for me to insult someone at random just to make a point for “the greater good.” I’ve already endorsed the concept of values pluralism– that sometimes principles can be in conflict with one another. As long as we all agree that the conflicting principles really and truly exist, I’m happy.)”
The only reasons I can give for you not to insult me are that it would hurt my feeling and maybe cause me to think less of you. Yet it is your choice whether or not to care about these considerations. Obviously you do not. I do not know you well enough to know if it is authentic of you to insult me. It doesn’t really matter, the consequences would be the same. If you are truely insensitive to my feelings, obviously talking about it would not achieve anything, nor would labeling you as immoral.
“I’m really uncomfortable with the assumption on this thread that “inconsistent logic” = “bad faith.” I don’t think that’s what Sartre meant with the term.”
I don’t know enough. I think it means inconsistency with one’s authenticity. Although I got the impression that it also means not admiting that one is responsible for one’s moral choices. As for example, your choice to insult me. But. like I said, I don’t know enough. I tried to look it up, but I’m too lazy right now to check my own notes. If you do know what it means be so kind as to right it down.
“Actually, I think your last statement is exactly what Sartre was doing. From what I’ve read, it was an ongoing pattern for him: as long as the “oppressors” (a term which begs various questions) were the ones taking the punishment, he didn’t much care what means the “oppressed” (see note re: “oppressor”) employed. I actually think at least part of his point in the letter was to call the French press hypocrites, for decrying the Munich terror attack when they were generally sympathetic to the Algerian insurgents who employed basically similar means. A fair point, but the problem that I see is that Sartre was pretty cool with both of them. Consistency isn’t always a good thing. In Sartre’s case it just means he’s wrong a lot.”
When I was a peace activist until about a year ago, I encountered many Israelis who did not understand that Palestinian terrorism does not validate their oppression, and some Israelis, Palestinians and Internationals who did not understand that Israeli oppression does not justify Palestinian terrorism. Although most activists I met did not support terrorism at all and others did not suppott it as much as understood it. I felt they were wrong, but I understood them. Like I said, many believe (including Americans) that violence is justified in the cause of freedom. At the time, since I wanted to oppose Israeli oppression, because I felt it was my responsibility as an Israeli and hoped it will eventually reduce Palestinian violence, I felt I must ally with these people, because a large part of the peace camp was paralyzed. Over time I lost faith in my own ability and in that of the peace camp’s abiility to afferct change, so I didn’t have to tolerate their opinions. However, I believe our arguments stemmed from a shared moral objection to oppression and terrorism, and that heir problem was blindness more than immorality.
“Besides, my true self has a little bit of a snide streak, and I was only being true to myself. Can’t we all just appreciate my good faith?”
Even if by being snide you were being authentic, there is no requirement to appreciate it. If you are suggesting that you had no choice but be snide, that would be, I think, bad faith. You have made a choice to be snide. That choice can now be judged. One result is that it was not clear to me what you meant.
A”nd I’m still not convinced that Sartre’s philosophy actually embraced the utilitarianism everyone keeps ascribing to it. I’ll shut up about that if someone can cite an example in Sartre’s own works, but until then I’ll assume that some people are interpolating a concept that isn’t fairly present. Please, someone, show me the underappreciated underlying morality to Sartre’s philosophy. I beg.”
I didn’t say that he was a utiliterian. Sartre’s philosophy is derived from Husrel’s phenomenology, that is derived from Decartes famous statement that the only thing known for certain is that “I think therefore I am,” and from Berkley and Hume’s philosophy that all we knw are our (phenomenologiocal) sensations of the material world. Utiliterianism was also informed by these in a different way.
“Wait, does that mean that aesthetics are an appropriate basis for moral evaluation again? Can I indict someone because he’s ugly and has stupid hair? Or engages in a form of sex that I find gross and repugnant? (I suspect you were making a joke, but I didn’t find it to be a very funny one. That, unlike ethics, is a question of personal taste.)”
You could indict someone for his hair if you lived in the Taliban regime. Until recently you could indict someone in the US for having sex is ways that some found repugnant. The difference between morality and aesthetics is the issue in question. I personaly am a fan of Hendrix, and that’s the only meaning of my statement.
“The difference of course being that the killer thinks that killing is generally immoral but that it’s okay for him to do it anyway, at least in this particular circumstance, whereas his victim most likely thinks that killing is both generally immoral and particularly immoral right now. Unlike you, I believe that only one of them is right.”
Not true. I suspect that you, like most people, believe that killing is justified under certain circumstances. I was not exactly clear, but I got the impression that you are for capital punishment for example. (This is not an attack, I am not completely opposed to them either, just the application. But the question is mostly irrelevant in Israel).
In any case, my point was that most of the time the argument is not whether killing is right as much as whether the circumstances warrant it. Which means that we share moral principles but argue about their application.
“Okay, here is where James’s “Is red red?” game comes into play. Killing is wrong only insofar as human perceive it to be wrong in precisely the same way that red is red only insofar as people perceive it to be red. Light still has the same range of wavelengths whether there is anyone to perceive them or not, but the concept of “red” (or for that matter the concept of “light”) only exists when there is a human mind to frame the concepts. Similarly, an object hitting another object at 1200 feet per second is physics; only when the first object is a bullet fired at a person, who is the second object, by yet another person who is angry, does physics gain a moral component. In an arid, depopulated desert there is no morality because there is nobody to exploit or be exploited.
Wow, we actually did get into epistemology.”
That is the point of the discussion I was trying to make.
“The very desire for guarantees that our values are eternal and secure in some objective heaven is perhaps only a craving for the certainties of childhood or the absolute values of our primitive past.” — Isaiah Berlin
If, as I believe, the ends of men are many, and not all of them are in principle compatible with each other, then the possibility of conflict — and of tragedy — can never wholly be eliminated from human life, either personal or social. The necessity of choosing between absolute claims is then an inescapable characteristic of the human condition. This gives its value to freedom as Acton conceived of it — as an end in itself, and not as a temporary need, arising out of our confused notions and irrational and disordered lives, a predicament which a panacea could one day put right.” — Isaiah Berlin, “Two Concepts of Liberty” (1958), part VIII.
I should really read his book one day.
Micha wrote I’m not sure how to do the bold for quotations.
The key for HTML markup is >. Insert an i between the > to start an italicized section, and a b between the > to start boldface. To end one of those sections, it’s the same markup but with a / in front of the letter, so that it’s blah blah blah (omitting the spaces).
The question was what makes moral principles valid? Obviously making a list of principles, even if you inscribe them on stone tablets, does not make them valid, even if the person making the list is you and not Sartre. It is still just a list.
But my question is, “Is my list right?” If my list is right, we can go back and try to determine why each, or all, of the items on the list are valid. But if I can provide at least one example of an absolute moral imperative, it necessarily proves that such a thing exists.
I’ve already offered my opinion about why I think a great many things are inherently wrong– because they offend the dignity of humans as sentient beings– but my observations may be correct even if my proposed explanation of my observations may be wrong.
I wrote, “I notice that nobody has taken me up on my wager, so please excuse me if I think at least part of my claim is as irrefutable as I believe it to be. (E.g., name one circumstance in the history of mankind where a forcible rape has been morally just. Just one.)”
Micha replied, a) A few years ago a woman in Pakistan (I think) was sentenced to be raped, I think for the crime of adultary.
And you think this was morally just? The fact that some country did something morally despicable is not exactly breaking news. We’ve done morally despicable things in the past (slavery, My Lai, sales tax).
b) Although to the best of my knowledge most societies in history viewed rape negatively (I’m not an anthropologist, and my studies in history were not of that topic), our concept of rape has changed a lot due to feminism in the last 30 years, especially with regard to date-rape and rape by husbands of their wives. If you ever watched Hitchcock’s movie Frenzy (?), which is about a rapist, it has a scene portrayiong a woman excited about the idea of being raped. I believe today this scene would be considered tasteless.
You say that as if tastelessness would keep something off the screen. I’m aware that some people have rape fantasies, but if it’s voluntary it’s not really rape, is it? As to former marital rape laws, you seem to have confused morality with legality. The law was unjust then.
c) I do not know if soldiers raping women during wars think of their acts as immoral or not. Nor do I know if rapists in general do. Rape is all too common. I think that most rapists do consider it immoral but alow other considerations to affect them, but I have no way of verifying it.
Look, you seriously seem to have a huge problem discerning between what ACTUALLY happens and what is MORAL. Not everything that actually happens (e.g. Stalinist purges) SHOULD happen. A discussion of morals is about what SHOULD happen. I know rapes actually happen, otherwise I wouldn’t be able to say they’re wrong, now would I?
I said last post that you were making my position into an idiotic straw man, but now I see I was mistaken. You actually don’t seem to understand what I was saying to begin with, or what I said last time, and I am not optimistic you understand the discussion we’re having even now.
d) As was previously mentioned rapes are said to occur in Jails often, yet we still send people to Jails. Does that mean that we endorse the rape of criminals?
No, it just means we have nowhere else to put criminals except prison. Blasting them into space would be an option, but I fear the cost would be prohibitive.
The only reasons I can give for you not to insult me are that it would hurt my feeling and maybe cause me to think less of you.
Really? I could come up with a few more than that. Manners are important. My point is that not only should you be unhappy with a gratuitous insult, but that everyone else reading it should agree, “well that was uncalled for,” and that whatever was rattling around in my head when I make the statement isn’t determinative of whether I was right to make it.
A lot of times my position will overlap with utilitarianism, but not always. Calculations of utility will often allow for fairly fascistic considerations, or more often can be abused to justify fascism. (“I’m sorry, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, in this case, your needs. Please get in the van.”) I prefer a framework that allows for a more robust notion of individual rights.
Wait, does that mean that aesthetics are an appropriate basis for moral evaluation again?
To a degree. There is a certain thing called respecting the artistic integrity of a piece of work and that implies a certain degree of morality. And allowing Pat Boone to defile anything by Hendrix is an absolute disrespect to the artistic integrity.
Can I indict someone because he’s ugly and has stupid hair?
No, because an indictment is a legal term, not a moral one. Just because something is immoral, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s legal. Lying is usually considered immoral, but it’s only illegal if it’s done under oath or to obstruct an investigation.*
Or engages in a form of sex that I find gross and repugnant?
Until recently, you could in Texas, but the Supreme Court said otherwise.
(I suspect you were making a joke, but I didn’t find it to be a very funny one. That, unlike ethics, is a question of personal taste.)
I actually thought it was very funny, but then that’s a question of personal tast. And, while personal taste may be somewhat subjective, there are simply some people who have no taste whatsoever.
*Unless, of course, the person lying to the investigator did it to provide political cover for a Bush, then, according the conservative blogosphere, that person is a hero.
Look David, you write down a list of moral principles and then challenge me to prove whether they are right or wrong, absolute or relative? But by what critrion should I decide whether your list s right or wrong, absolute or not? Without a critirion I can not concede that you have proved the existence of an absolute moral principle.
Obviously you and I would consider the rape in Pakistan, as well as any other rape as immoral. But by definition (of our discussion) our personal judgement (or at least mine) cannot be considered in itself a critirion for the absoluteness of a moral principle. We believe that our morality is better than that of these Pakistani, but is our belief enough? Obviously not if what we are seeking are absolute moral principles.
to use your language: WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO FIND OUT IS WHAT MAKES MORALS TRUE.
So it is not that I cannot distinguish between what is moral and what actualy happens. But that I have a critirion to define when something actually happened but not for whether it was moral or not. (or to be precise, I was not given one by you in the context of this discussion, and my own critirions were not discussed much).
It seems that our discussion is at a standstill possibly because we are not even having the same discussion. As for myself, I can claim that I have tried to clarify the positions (my own and yours) as much as I can so we can join each other in the same discussion. If I failed it is not because of lack of trying.
And now in this post you do give a critirion for defining moral princiles as absolute, and you do it explicitly and not implicitly, so that even someone like myself can understand. Finally we are talking about the same thing. How nice it would have been if you provided that critirion earlier.
And the critirion is: because they offend the dignity of humans as sentient beings.
Wonderful, I believe this basic principle is shared by many good people. It is a humanistic principle I also share. But, is it a critirion of absoluteness of moral principles? After all, isn’t it in itself just a moral principle, a good one, a very encompassing one, but to say that something offends is basically to say that it is immoral. Why is it wrong to offend human dignity? Is there an objective reason that we shouldn’t offend human dignity? Is there something essential about humanity that necessitates that its dignity should not be offended?
I can see no other than this: that you an I choose (most of the time) to value human dignity. I tend to believe that the idea of respect for human dignity is a basic aspect of a morality naturaly shared by most humans on a deep emotional level (i.e. something that can be studied by psychology, anthroplogy, sociology etc.), and that in the cases where it is ignored it is because of other emotional motivations. But still some people choose respect human dignity and some do not, and there is no objective way to define that what they offend as valuable, except that we humans consider it as such.
One last thing:
“The only reasons I can give for you not to insult me are that it would hurt my feeling and maybe cause me to think less of you.
Really? I could come up with a few more than that. Manners are important. My point is that not only should you be unhappy with a gratuitous insult, but that everyone else reading it should agree, “well that was uncalled for,” and that whatever was rattling around in my head when I make the statement isn’t determinative of whether I was right to make it.”
>To say that you should not insult me according to the principle of politeness is like saying that you shouldn’t kill me because it would harm the fabric of society in some way. It is a valid moral principle, but one that is too motivated by a calculated self interest in the existence of a society with manners.
Why would everybody else agree that insulting me was wrong? It could be because they value manners or it could be because they value human dignity. In other words, because we all have a shared comprehension of what it feels like to be insulted, we would not want someone else to experience this feeling, meaning that others care about how I feel. But that caring isn’t an absolute moral principle as far as I can tell.
Since my last post I did three things that might help prevent this argument from continuing in the same way.
1) I looked up moral skepticism and was reminded how technical moral philosophy gets at a certain point.
2) I looked at David’s arguments from another direction. Instead of asking what critirion makes David’s list of moral principles true, I asked a different question of applicability. Is it ever necessary when applying these moral principles to refer to the specifics of a case in order to decide whether the principle is true or false? And I indeed can’t think of a time when any circumstances can cause me to think that rape was not moraly wrong (without asking on what I base my assumption that rape is immoral).
Taking the discussion in this direction opens a whole new group of questions. I also am not sure that we can divorce that question from the question I was asking (what makes a moral view justified?). But maybe it can help clarify some of the mess we had had in this argument.
I prefer to think of it as an argument stemming from different points of view and misunderstanding and not about stupidity. But this is a matter of choice.
3) It also seems to be that both I and David and others share the same basic moral principle at the heart of our morality:
Human dignity is of moral value.
A religious humanist might justify this claim by saying that human dignity is of valuable because god created man and so on.
But without god I and David and Tim (I think) would say that:
Moral dignity is of value because humans are sentient.
But the point in which we may differ (I’m not sure) is that I don’t think that we can deduce the fact that humans are valuable from the fact that humans are sentient (the way we deduce scientific facts from natural facts). What I believe is that the fact of sentience makes humans capable of ascribing a moral value to human sentience. It is not an deduction as much as an action or choice.
In the real world this is a small difference since the end result is that we value human dignity. But it is of philosophical significance.
I hope this helps clarify things as much as morality can eve be clarified.
This is probably as good a stopping point as any for the debate, since Micha and I ended up tolerably close to one another. It was fun, folks.
“For Pat Boone to sing anything by Hendrix (and probably many others in the list of great rock musicians) is absolutly immoral.”
you want horrible?
Try Britney Spears covering both Joan Jett’s “I love Rock n Roll,” AND *shudder* the Rolling Stone’s “(I can’t get no) Satisfaction”
“Hello Officer. Why am I speeding to the hospital with blood shooting out both ears? You wouldn’t believe me if I told you.”
Actualy, I was being rather silly. Covering great songs is a long tradition. Sometimes you get good ones, sometimes bad ones and some as great as the original. (See Peter’s latest post on fan reaction).
On the other hand, Bowling for Soup’s cover of “Baby One More Time” reveals what an actually good song that was.
Actualy, I was being rather silly. Covering great songs is a long tradition. Sometimes you get good ones, sometimes bad ones and some as great as the original.
Speaking of… I heard Korn’s cover of “Another Brick in the Wall” yesterday. It’s utter crap.
“Speaking of… I heard Korn’s cover of “Another Brick in the Wall” yesterday. It’s utter crap”
Yeah, but it gets worse. The Scissor Sisters covered “Comfortably Numb” on SNL last year. That was, for me, the absolute nadir of modern music. Even Britney and the Spice Girls never dreamed of anything that foul.
Speaking of horrible covers, the R&B version of “Bohemaian Rhapsody” I heard once was pretty abominable, and Madonna’s version of “American Pie” should be considered a capital offense.
-Rex Hondo-
The basic problem with covering “Another Brick In the Wall Pt 2” (or pretty much anything off The Wall) is that out of context, the songs aren’t nearly as good, nor do they seem to make a lick of sense. I mean, divorced from the context of the post-WWII British boarding school system, what in the hëll is “Another Brick In the Wall Pt 2” supposed to be about?
On the other hand, I did love Weird Al Yankovic’s “Bohemian Rhapsody” cover, “Bohemian Polka”… 🙂
and Madonna’s version of “American Pie” should be considered a capital offense.
Several years ago, I happened to play Weird Al’s “The Saga Begins” in one of my classes (as background music while they did a lab). For those unaware, the song basically recaps Star Wars: Episode I to the tune of “American Pie.”
A few days later, a student came to me with a song that she said I needed to hear. “It’s using the same music as the song we heard.”
I said, “Wait — is it the Madonna cover?”
“Yeah!”
“Sorry — I can’t listen to that.”
As a huge Madonna fan, she was quite puzzled.
TWL
Madonna must die for that crime against humanity she inflicted on that classic song…
Slightly related to cover songs, back when I was in college in Cincinnati, one of the local independent stations, channel 64, had an interesting ad campaign about the classic 50s and 60s TV shows it aired in reruns. At the time, several re-makes of old shows were appearing, either as new TV shows such as _Next Generation_ or as reunion TV movies, such as _Get Smart, Again._ Channel 64’s ad featured a record player playing a cover of a song and a voice over announcer saying “remakes are never as good as the original.” A hand then drew the record player’s arm across the record, and the song was replaced with the original version.
All well and good. Except–
One of the station’s “remakes are never as good as the original” spots had the Eisley Brothers’ version of “Twist and Shout” replaced by the Beatles’ version.
The Beatles’ version _was_ the remake.
Rick
On the other hand, I did love Weird Al Yankovic’s “Bohemian Rhapsody” cover, “Bohemian Polka”… 🙂
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
And for you Lost fans
http://www.weirdal.com/lostrhapsody/lostrhapsody.htm
As a huge Madonna fan, she was quite puzzled.
I think that’s another typo. You meant, “As a person with absolutely no taste, she was quite puzzle,” right?
Madonna has been skirting a much-deserved death sentence for two decades now, mostly for her alleged “acting.”
Personally, and this is speaking as a DJ, Remakes fall into two categories-A)Why didn’t the original sound this good, or B) THE PAIN! THE PAIN! SOMEONE GET ME OUT OF HERE! Case in point, Carfax Abbey’s rendition of Cry Little Sister. A touch morehaunting than the original. Check it out at http://WWW.Carfaxabbey.com. I’ ALMOST gotten the horror of Madonna’s Pie out of my head. But at night, the freams still come…. Now if I could just get Weird Al’s The Night Santa Went Crazy out of my noggin, I’d be a very happy man….
Personally, and this is speaking as a DJ, Remakes fall into two categories
I’d agree. Mostly, I think a remake makes a lot of sense if the new person gives the song something new — a case in point is the cover of “Mad World” that came out a couple of years ago. The original Tears for Fears version was forgettable pop (IMO); the new one was haunting.
As for Madonna’s song — KFOG, a radio station in San Francisco, has a feature called “10@10” where they play ten songs from the same year. Occasionally they have theme days rather than a particular year (e.g. taxes, which they do every April 15). Whenever we get a Friday the 13th, the theme is always the same — “Hits From Hëll.”
Madonna’s American Pie frequently gets high billing in that event.
Now if I could just get Weird Al’s The Night Santa Went Crazy out of my noggin, I’d be a very happy man….
Spoilsport. 🙂
TWL
The original Tears for Fears version was forgettable pop (IMO); the new one was haunting.
You know, this is a perfect way to describe Marilyn Manson’s cover of “Sweet Dreams”.
I also think Metallica’s cover of “Turn the Page” is incredibly better than the original. 🙂
I should’ve mentioned it at the time, but the cover of “Another Brick in the Wall” with Layne Stanley singing was a pretty good version. But Korn… *shudder*
Complete the circle and return to Sci-Fi land with…
“Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds” covered by Bill Shatner 🙂
And “The Night Santa went Crazy” isn’t a parody, it’s an original, ain’t it? The “Extra Gory” version is even better 🙂
I also think Metallica’s cover of “Turn the Page” is incredibly better than the original. 🙂
Gotta disagree here. Metallica’s cover is perfectly decent (and I just heard it yesterday), but Bob Seger’s version is, IMO, one of the absolute best life-on-the-road songs ever made. There’s a reason that Metallica kept that same lone saxophone wail.
TWL
but Bob Seger’s version is, IMO, one of the absolute best life-on-the-road songs ever made
The funniest thing is that “Turn the page” was originally a country song…which ended up being covered by a heavy metal band.
The seger version has the more haunting vocals, but metallica’s has a much rougher edge to it that really goes well with the lyrics. Also, the music video they did for it worked perfectly. It was the story of an aging stripper trying to make a living for her and her two kids. Very poignent. But yeah, that sax…the only other sax riff that even comapares to it is the riff from “Baker Street.”
Also, so that this thread is not merely a source of unending pain…what about the BEST covers out there? I would say the Hendrix version of “all Along the Watchtower,” and the Warren Zevon “Knocking on Heaven’s door.”
by the way, if my first, sad attempt at HTML fails, don’t blame me. Blame Wikipedia.
the only other sax riff that even comapares to it is the riff from “Baker Street.”
Which, appropriately enough, was covered by the Foo Fighters. As best I can tell, they got the same wail out of a guitar.
The seger version has the more haunting vocals, but metallica’s has a much rougher edge to it that really goes well with the lyrics.
It works fine with the lyrics, agreed — but I think the haunting nature of Seger’s version did a great job capturing the loneliness of the thing. Both work — I just think that Seger’s was one of those songs that didn’t need to be improved upon.
But yeah, that sax…the only other sax riff that even comapares to it is the riff from “Baker Street.”
I think the Clarence Clemons riff in “Jungleland” is up there as well — but other than that one, I agree with you. (And “Baker Street” is fantastic — one of the few times I’ve bought a CD without knowing any material other than one song.)
Also, so that this thread is not merely a source of unending pain…what about the BEST covers out there? I would say the Hendrix version of “all Along the Watchtower,” and the Warren Zevon “Knocking on Heaven’s door.”
Both are superb.
There are two I like that I’m not even certain count as covers. Linda Ronstadt’s version of “Desperado” matches the Eagles cut, in my opinion — but since I believe they were released simultaneously I’m not sure it really counts as a cover. And the Police covered themselves with “Don’t Stand So Close ’86”, which IMO at least equals the original.
Straight-up covers: hmm. Someone else already mentioned “Twist and Shout”. I think Otis Day and the Knights’ version of “Shout” (from the Animal House soundtrack) is far superior to the original, though I’m sure that’s also just a function of connecting it to the film.
Judy Collins’ cover of Joni Mitchell’s “Both Sides Now” is beautiful, though the original is also great.
Patti Smith’s cover of “Because the Night”.
Manfred Mann’s cover of “Blinded by the Light” easily outstrips the original Springsteen version.
Speaking of Bob Seger, he does a pretty good job on CCR’s “Fortunate Son.”
Cry Cry Cry (a collaboration of Dar Williams, Richard Shindell, and Lucy Kaplansky) has an album of nothing but covers of less-well-known folk artists’ material. (At least, usually, it’s less well known. They also cover REM’s “Fall On Me” and do a stellar job.)
I could mention Barnes & Barnes’ “Please Please Me”, but that one’s just evil.
Oh, and one other for the list of “why was this ever made?” — I believe it was Dolly Parton who did a cover of the Eagles’ “Seven Bridges Road.” Eek.
TWL
Covers….hm. The Creedence Clearwater versions of GOOD GOLLY MISS MOLLY and I HEARD IT THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE were pretty good….
I believe it was Dolly Parton who did a cover of the Eagles’ “Seven Bridges Road.” Eek.
I saw her on the 25th Anniversary of John Lennon’s death performing “Imagine” on CMT. She did an excellent version IMHO, and I NEVER expected CMT to do a John Lennon Tribute.
The Creedence Clearwater versions of GOOD GOLLY MISS MOLLY and I HEARD IT THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE were pretty good….
I actually sorta prefer the CCR version of “I Heard it through the Grapevine.” It’s rawer, and a LOT more pìššëd øff.
Jose Feliciano’s “Light My Fire” should be turned into mandolin picks….no….wait…HE should be turned into mandolin picks for doing it.
Rage against the Machines version of Dylan’s “maggies Farm….”
oh….the pain….
On the OTHER hand…there are the GOOD covers..
Stevie ray Vaughn’s version of Hendrix’s “Little Wing” was much better, primarily cause it is much longer. He also trumped Hendrix’s “Voodoo Chile” especially in the live versions. Surprisingly enough, his version of “Superstition” was also excellent.
And Rufus Wainwright’s cover of “Hallelujah” by Leonard Cohen is the best….although Jeff Buckley runs a close second, with both severely trumping the original.
And, thanks to the “The Who” Collection I just got, I now realize that “Summertime Blues” is an awesome song. Previously I had only heard the country version.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml;sessionid=0YYI3EIM55XSLQFIQMGCM54AVCBQUJVC?xml=/arts/2004/11/20/bmcovercont20.xml&sSheet=/arts/2004/11/20/ixtop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=35206
This is one list of the top 50 covers of all time.
Some are dead on, some just suck…(the scissor sisters’ “comfortably numb” is BETTER than the original???)
You know, this is a perfect way to describe Marilyn Manson’s cover of “Sweet Dreams”.
Oy. Well, different stokes and all…I had a mad crush on Annie Lennox so MM’s version seemed like someone raping my childhood.
Linda Ronstadt’s version of “Desperado” matches the Eagles cut, in my opinion — but since I believe they were released simultaneously I’m not sure it really counts as a cover.
ANOTHER mad crush. yeah, I love Linda’s stuff. Louise, the Paul Siebel song on the Silk Purse album always chokes me up.
Good covers?…Police and Thieves by The Clash, Rocket man by Kate Bush (ANOTHER mad crush!), Money (That’s What I Want) by The Flying Lizards (or am I the only one who prefers that version?),…come to think of it, aren’t some of the great 60s songs often remakes of others? I think that some of the Byrds stuff was originally Dylan songs but it’s the Byrds versions I prefer.
Definitely One by Johnny Cash. Full props to the guys who wrote it but Johnny Cash made it his own.
Rocket man by Kate Bush
I have GOT to find myself a copy of that. I’ve never heard it, but I love the original and I can easily see how KB could do a great job with it.
come to think of it, aren’t some of the great 60s songs often remakes of others?
Especially in the folk community, yes, but also outside it (several early Beatles cuts, for one example).
TWL
Best cover….
Tom Jones and Art of Noise covering Prince’s “Kiss”
Covers of note;
Sixpence None The Richer’s cover of the La’s’ “There She Goes.”
They might be giants version of The Four Lads’ “Istanbul, not Constantinople”
Silverchair’s version of the Clash’s “London’s Burning”
And this whole thing started with PAD responding to the reaction to Bush’s Christmas card.
I’ve read about information cascades, this must be an information mutation.
(slightly bad mood, I’ve just read a bunch of online biographies of the Clash. All that passion, all that political commitment, and what changes did they acommplish? Almost nothing from what I can see. Okay, they set the stage for bands susch as chumbawamba who donate profits to worty causes, still…)
Disturbed’s covers of “Shout” (Tears for Fears) and “Land of Confusion” (Genesis) both fall into the GOOD cover category. Even though I like the originals just fine, Disturbed adds the edge that both songs deserve.
As for performers remaking their own songs, I much prefer Eric Clapton’s original work to his “Unplugged” performances, especially “Layla.”
On the just plain BAD end of the spectrum, Lenny Kravitz should be flogged naked in the street for raping “American Woman” the way he did…
-Rex Hondo-
slightly bad mood, I’ve just read a bunch of online biographies of the Clash. All that passion, all that political commitment, and what changes did they acommplish?
They made some GREAT MUSIC! Which is all a band can really expect anyway. Yeah, they thought they could change the world. Everybody does. Seldom works out, probably for the better–as economists, most bass players make very good bass players. At the end of the day the Clash boys can look back and say they made “Somebody Got Murdered”, among other gems. That’s enough for one lifetime.
Diamonds And Rust (by Joan Baez)as performed by Judas Priest.
also, Green Manalishi as performed by Judas Priest (originally a Fleetwood Mac song when Peter Green was their front man).
other covers of note, U2’s Like A Song as covered by Believer, White Wedding covered by Sentenced, Type O Negative’s cover of Sabbath’s Paranoid.
the list goes on . . .
“This is one list of the top 50 covers of all time.
Some are dead on, some just suck…(the scissor sisters’ “comfortably numb” is BETTER than the original???)”
Wow. They chose “One” over “Hurt” by Cash? His cover of U2’s “One” is good…but “Hurt” pretty much redefined the song for everyone-including the guy who wrote the song.
Wow. They chose “One” over “Hurt” by Cash? His cover of U2’s “One” is good…but “Hurt” pretty much redefined the song for everyone-including the guy who wrote the song.
Gotta say I agree – Cash’s version made Trent Reznor sound downright optimistic!
“The Night Santa Went Crazy” and “Christmas At Ground Zero”, both originals by Weird Al, are among the cornerstones of my personal Christmas CD. Most of the songs on it are, of course, from Bob Rivers (“I Am Santa Claus”, “Little Hooters Girl”, “Wreck the Malls”, etc), and it starts off with Tom Lehrer’s “Christmas Carol”, but it just wouldn’t be complete without the Yankovic tunes…
They chose “One” over “Hurt” by Cash? His cover of U2’s “One” is good…but “Hurt” pretty much redefined the song for everyone-including the guy who wrote the song.
Maybe they, like me, were thinking of Hurt when they wrote down One. Whoops.
More:
Head On by the Pixies (orignally a Jesus and mary Chain recording)
Winterlong by the Pixies (originally by Neil Young.
Superstar by Sonic Youth (originally by the Carpenters)
Hush by Deep Purple (original by Joe South)
Pearl Jam’s version of Last Kiss
Tori Amos doing Famous Blue raincoat by Leonard cohen
“The Night Santa Went Crazy” and “Christmas At Ground Zero”, both originals by Weird Al, are among the cornerstones of my personal Christmas CD.
Seconded (or at least, it would be if I had a personal Christmas CD).
I think a lot of people don’t realize just how good a lot of Al’s original songs are. “Dare to be Stupid” is the absolute best Devo song that Devo never made, just as an obvious for-instance. (They’re not all terrific, of course, but he hits an awful lot more than I think people might suspect.)
TWL
ooh, completely forgot Tori Amos.
i absolutely adore her cover of Angie by The Rolling Stones.
Cream’s version of Crossroads
ooh, completely forgot Tori Amos.
i absolutely adore her cover of Angie by The Rolling Stones.
Which reminds me: the Sundays have a terrific cover of the Stones’ “Wild Horses”. Worth a listen.
TWL
http://newgrounds.com/portal/view/285267
Speaking of music….
watch this…
its….just watch.
I have NEVER EVER EVER laughed so hard.
And the music is kickin’.