Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Hitler and Moral Relativism
Message-ID: <447@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Apr-85 12:46:55 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.447
Posted: Fri Apr  5 12:46:55 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 7-Apr-85 09:29:56 EST
References: <2580@ihuxf.UUCP> <1345@aecom.UUCP> <487@lll-crg.ARPA> <789@bunker.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: net
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 54

Before I can answer Samuelson's questions, I first need to explain my
moral relativist understanding of what morality is.

Morality is a heuristic strategy that we use in our competition with others.

People tend to call things that aid them moral, and things that harm them
immoral.  However, the strategy is more complex than that sounds.  If I
do something that on the surface might aid me, I might incur a reaction
from another that would undo the benefit.

Now let's leave the abstract and deal with Gary's questions.

In article <789@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes:
> 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?

I'm a moral relativist, so I don't believe there is any such thing as an
absolute morality.  Morality is in the eye of the beholder.

Nazism was moral-- to some Nazis.  It was and is immoral in the eyes of
many beholders, including me.  Simply because we perceive it as strongly
dangerous to us.

You see, there is no absolute morality, but we still have to have a working
morality.

> 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.

You misunderstand.  We can observe that it Hitler had won the war, more
people would feel he was moral.  But many moral relativists wouldn't
consider him moral (from the standpoint of being compatable with their
ideas) whether or not he won the war.  (I can't speak for myself-- I might
have been raised as a Hitler Youth if he had won.)

> (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.)

I detect well-placed sarcasm here: and I agree.  Rosen is wrong to insist
similarly.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh