No but I think that’s the point. Right and wrong are automatically subjective categories, unless anchored by some authority principle. Yet some people pretend they are not, and hate anyone with a differing opinion on what is right and wrong. Whoever wrote this hideous review is such a person in my opinion, and clearly has not understood that her opinions and moralities are completely subjective as well, no less than those of a religious person. There is nothing fact-based about postmodern ideologies, which can be just as irrational as any others. And can kill and oppress just as many people, if not more.
Plato tried to base his moral system on reason, which in his mind led to wisdom and therefore to doing the right thing. So logic and mathematics would be the authority principles from which right and wrong are derived according to him. To some people this might seem like a poor substitute for God, which is perhaps why Plato also tried to develop an escatology and a concept of God. And that is where the Christian Trinity came from originally. To Plato it was goodness, truth and wisdom, each reinforcing the other as a sort of driving mechanism of spiritual and intellectual life. Together these three ideas were God. Still not deliberate or particularly conscious, but God nonetheless.
Supposedly living according to this would inevitably make you do the right thing. Because the truth would have made you wise, right? And clearly a wise person would do the right thing at least more often than a fool, or so one would think. And in reverse, a fool would do wrong (Evil if you’re religious. Plato considered evil simply an absence of good though.) all the time and become less and less conscious/wise/good as a result.
Not saying this is necessarily how I think. It’s just my interpretation of Platonic morality. And it’s really not very different from Christian morality I think. It’s just more intellectual than emotional; more reasonable than mystical.

Personally I always prefer to write the word “authorities” in quotation marks. We make them and nurture them to our own detriment most of the time. I do not believe that freedom is a viable concept if people can have authorities imposed on them. If people choose God as an authority to escape the arbitrations of other people I have no problem with that. If they choose governments and other secular powers as their authority I don’t have a problem with that either. Just don’t force any of them on me. I’ll define my own authorities. More people should do the same I think.

In the model you put forth, though, you’re assuming that there is a definitive right and wrong. There’s also the assumption that doing these things will certainly lead to misery. Problem is that without an authority defining right and wrong, it becomes entirely subjective, something Aristotle and just about everything philosopher since him agrees with.

Your model doesn’t objectively define right and wrong. It essentially boils down to action vs. Consequence, which isn’t a moral issue at all.

Precisely. But what the neo-communists mean by the word is totalitarianism, where government and other “authorities” replace God. That’s why they hate religious people so much, because there is something they put above the almighty government. And I’m not even religious. But I know that there’s no talking to people like this about anything. Never mind that Christian Europe was the first major culture in human history to ban slavery; or human sacrifice for that matter. It somehow isn’t true because it conflicts with their programming. It’s all very depressing..

Not necessarily. The contesting idea is of natural law rather than divine law and goes back to at least Plato. According to him you become miserable if you do the wrong thing, and that was his equivalent of hell. The more wrong you do the further you remove yourself from wisdom and transcendence. Conversely the more good you do the happier and wiser you become. It’s obviously similar to Hinduism and Buddhism, but it is nevertheless a secular morality based on reason rather than faith. I’d argue that it works exactly the same too.
Not that the oblivious person who wrote this review/personal attack of Mel Gibson would know that.

The question he is grappling with is in all his movies is how does a man stay just and good in the face of evil, both his own and that of others. Empire against humanity, rich against poor, strong against weak, the unjust against the innocent. That’s all he’s ever talked about and all I expect he’ll talk about until he dies. How can you review his movies when you don’t even understand what he’s saying?

But then, what do I know? You write for The Playlist; I’m just a an everyday ordinary Joe.

I think the movie has some problemas AS a movie. Just this. from 1 to 5, I Think is a 3,5.

But the story… Wow! What history!

But not ‘ethical’ problems. I didn’t see the “religious intransigence”. I saw a man that really do what he must to do. He just want to do what he thinks is the right.

And he is a religious man? Yes, he is. And why is it a problem? If he believes in Gaia, The Force, Dead people or in the ‘man power’ it would be all right?

Sadly it was not a movie critic.

Actually it was Jesus who commanded the nation of Israel to make war and it was the death penalty for murderers was Jesus idea.

90% of his comment paraphrased her, he then wrote; “I don’t have to say anything”.

Wow, how in depth.

And before you claim I’m doing the same thing, I have expressed my opinion on this review. Scroll down if you want to see it, I’m not writing it again for you.

War itself is already a horrible sin, committed by man against man himself! There is no “just war” in the eyes of Jesus, and therefore should not be considered as such in the eyes of any consistent and faithful Christian. “Do not resist the wicked, turn the other cheek when you are beaten, forgive and love your enemy, as God did with you … Love one another as I love you, and you will be children of God” are radical teachings and difficult to digest, even two thousand years later! But they are the ones that are in the Gospels, and those that Christ will claim from his own when he returns a second time, very soon. This was Desmond’s faith, and I fully understand it. We can not remove something that we are not able to restore: only God can decide about life or death, not us …

Are you blind, Adam?? Read above AGAIN, man, and don’t write bullshit… That has no intelligence!

Tell your friend Doss sounds like a he was a great guy and I can’t wait to see his movie.

I agree. Not only did she really seem hung up on a purely positive example of a guy’s pretty hardcore religious belief, that was only kind spirited, but she misread a lot of parts of the movie that she quoted, big time.

I did see it. I think the representation of religion was appropriate considering the subject of the film. I thought the combat sequences were pretty well done, with a few off bits that probably would not be noticed by most people. It was not a film about Jesus, it was a film about bravery and patriotism, and the horror of war.

Hope you saw it…I have many of the same feelings you expressed, but was greatly moved by this man’s adherence to his moral compass; his faith, to which he attributed his outstanding feat of bravery and heroism, which then swayed his battalion’s attitude re: the man’s, said cowardice!!! I am glad I saw this movie!!

Reviewing the film for its merits as a piece of cinematic art is one thing. She seemed to be more preoccupied with the director’s reputation and his religious ideology, which she clearly takes exception to. Next time stick to the actual movie.

I despise Trump, but American journalism is dead.

[Full.film] Hacksaw Ridge 2016 Full Online putlocker Movie
http://imgur.com/kKXks7X
.

https://theplaylist.net/viscerally-affecting-ethically-worrisome-hacksaw-ridge-venice-review-20160904/