Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Samuelson on Moral Relativism
Message-ID: <865@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Apr-85 10:40:04 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.865
Posted: Fri Apr  5 10:40:04 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Apr-85 03:24:51 EST
References: <2580@ihuxf.UUCP> <1345@aecom.UUCP> <487@lll-crg.ARPA> <789@bunker.UUCP>
Organization: STRONGARM COLLECTION AGENCY:  We have no slogan
Lines: 53

> 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?

Muffy's conclusion is absolutely correct.  Because "right" and "wrong" are
determined by the controlling societal forces at all times.  In a world
in which all human life is valued, Hitler's acts and philosophies were and
are heinous.  In a world ruled by Nazis, all human life would not be valued,
there would be exceptions, those who did not serve the best interests (in
their eyes) of society.  Of course, if indoctrinated in that way of thinking,
that would of course be right.  I happen to value all human life.  And I
think the generally accepted version of what our society is SUPPOSED to
adhere to says the same thing, though in practice we have seen exceptions
often on grand scales.  (Yes, love all people equally.  The only way we
can have a world in which we love all people equally is to kill off all of
the Schmengenites, because I could never love those bastards!)

> 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.

Note the pretzelization of the original statements by Samuelson.  Nazism is
not considered moral because of the precept above regarding the valuing of
all human life.  There are rational reasons for holding such a precept
in society.  What's extremely humorous is that some Christians are so
appalled by notions of "moral relativism" (tied to so-called situational
ethics), perhaps believing that theirs IS the absolute morality that Gary
referred to above, when in reality it is in itself an example of moral
relativism.

> (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.)

That tactic doesn't work coming from your side, Gary.  You see, when faced
with questions like that and with remarks about how the asker may expect
silence, who is it that turns tail and remains silent?  Not I.

> Apologies to Muffy; I do not mean this to be a personal attack.

She has as much right to see this as a personal attack as you did in seeing
my articles as personal attacks...
-- 
Life is complex.  It has real and imaginary parts.
					Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr