Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ittvax!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Hitler and Moral Relativism
Message-ID: <789@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 4-Apr-85 09:59:04 EST
Article-I.D.: bunker.789
Posted: Thu Apr  4 09:59:04 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Apr-85 04:44:55 EST
References: <2580@ihuxf.UUCP> <1345@aecom.UUCP> <487@lll-crg.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 46

> In article <1345@aecom.UUCP> teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) writes:

> >	I really do not believe what I am reading. Was Hitler wrong?
> > If he had won the war, would he be right? How can a man, for any
> > twisted crazy ideal go and kill one person, let alone 6,000,000.
> > What right does any person have to kill innocent people. 

Muffy replies:

> Actually, if Hitler had won, he would indeed have been correct.  Not from
> *my* point of view, of course, but I would be dead.  In fact, as I recall,
> he wanted to kill everyone who didn't believe as he did, so the only people
> left alive would be those that agreed with him, or said they did.  Regard-
> less of what you may believe, "right" and "wrong" are societally defined, 
> they are *not* inborn.  Thus, if everyone in my society thinks as I do, 
> then I am right.  If Hitler killed off all the people that didn't think as
> he did, his society would have agreed with him, and he would be right.

Occasionally, someone (usually not a religious person, but there are
exceptions) will make the claim that there is no such thing as an
absolute morality (I use the term "moral relativist" to refer to one
who so believes).  Then, someone else (usually a religious person,
but again there are exceptions) will say that the lack of an absolute
morality would mean there is no rational reason to condemn what
Hitler did.  The moral relativist will usually disagree with this
conclusion.  Now, will all the moral relativists explain why Muffy's
conclusion is incorrect, or admit that moral relativism allows Nazism
to be considered moral?

And if moral relativism, consistently followed, would consider Nazism
to be moral, if only Hitler had won the war, then I submit that
moral relativsim is a dangerous philosophy.

(Of course, unless all the moral relativists on the net denounce Muffy,
immediately if not sooner, then the moral absolutists will justly
conclude that they in fact agree with Muffy's reasoning, and by
extension condone Hitler's actions.)

Apologies to Muffy; I do not mean this to be a personal attack.
I believe that your position is a logical conclusion of moral
relativism, and am picking on you only because you are the one
who happened to state that position.  It is the position I
take exception to.

Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys