Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mcnc.mcnc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!mcnc!bch
From: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Who decides on morals?
Message-ID: <448@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Apr-85 22:25:04 EST
Article-I.D.: mcnc.448
Posted: Wed Apr  3 22:25:04 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Apr-85 02:22:33 EST
References: <487@lll-crg.ARPA> <4511@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Distribution: net
Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service
Lines: 35
Summary: 

In article <487@lll-crg.ARPA> muffy@lll-crg.UUCP (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>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.


In article <4511@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes:
>So I guess Martin Luther King Jr. was an immoral person, since his morality
>was in conflict with his society.  And I suppose that we, as Americans, had
>no right to move against Hitler, or to condemn his actions.  Sorry Muffy,
>this line of argument was refuted a long time ago.  Pure cultural relativism
>just doesn't cut it.

I fear I agree with Muffy on this one.  Perhaps in Maryland Martin Luther
King is a saint, but you don't have to go too far outside Chapel Hill, N.C.
to get a very different picture -- this among some otherwise very moral
people.

We only have to look at the history of this country to see cultural rela-
tivism in action.  200 years ago slavery was "right."   It was defended
in most churches and legitimized in the Articles of confederation.  A straw
poll (among the landed) would have confirmed that most thought it was
"right."  Of course we all know better now, but where did our enlightenment
come from?  I don't believe it is because we are on some moral track toward
absolute and perfect right, but believe it is because of a cultural change
induced by the fact that slavery became distinctly unprofitable.
-- 

						Byron C. Howes
				      ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch