Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Hitler and Moral Relativism
Message-ID: <46@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Apr-85 12:23:51 EST
Article-I.D.: utastro.46
Posted: Fri Apr  5 12:23:51 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 7-Apr-85 03:44:14 EST
References: <2580@ihuxf.UUCP> <1345@aecom.UUCP> <487@lll-crg.ARPA> <789@bunker.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 68

> > 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?
> 

Interesting point. I dont think that Muffy's point of view has to be
denounced though. Basically I think the thrust of Muffy's line
of reasoning is that the victors get to write the history books, and
some truths can only be determined by studying history. A classic
case of this is the histories on WW2 presented by western and
eastern block countries. We might not like it, but it happens.

The lack of a moral absolute does not mean that the moral
relativist cannot condemn Hitler's actions. Without accepting
an absolute, one can accept pragmatic guidelines such as things that
make life miserable for segments of the population should be avoided
if at all possible. That an act can not be condemned
on absolute grounds doesn't automatically imply that it must
be condoned.

> 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.)
>
> Gary Samuelson
> ittvax!bunker!garys

It is not an either/or situation. The choice is not limited to having
absolute morals, or none at all. Philosophies based on "absolutes"
can also be dangerous e.g. The history of europe is practically
a history of religous wars; Recall the stranglehold that religion
had on learning because it accepted Aristotle as being absolutely
correct. Note also that absolute morality frequently goes hand in
hand with absolute righteousness, and certainty, giving rise to
extreme fanaticism as is evident in communistic, and islamic
behaviour.

Padraig Houlahan.