Some Jewish writers in antiquity have discussed a concept called "holy uncertainty". That is, there is much Man will never know, the nature of God, for instance. It is arrogance to attempt to understand that, it is "holy" to accept the uncertainty with grace.

Those people who talk about "moral absolutes", being able to completely judge the morality of a situation sort of lose track. For instance -

Let's assume a group of heavily armed men slaughters 45 acknowledged innocent civilians, in a 4 hour operation. Included are 25 members of one single family who were celebrating a wedding. An additional 100+ villagers, innocent civilians, are wounded.

There were no combatants, no firing back, no threat or casualties to the attacking group.

A lot of people in their moral absoluteness who would say that's Wrong. Absolutely Wrong.

Some people would say that if the attackers were trying to free the world from people who slaughter innocent civilians, and if they thought someone might have shot at one of them earlier, it's just dandy to kill 'em all. That'll teach 'em.

(Remember Lt. Calley, the guy who lined up civilians in a ditch in Nam and mowed 'em down. Those people were feeling sorry for Calley. Go figure.)

So, if you can justify that slaughter, you cannot say anything is wrong, not with any logic or consistency. You are stuck with "holy uncertainty".

Arf (to be a "good guy", ya gotta be "good")