Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!laura
From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Hitler and Moral Relativism
Message-ID: <5441@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Apr-85 06:38:50 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5441
Posted: Mon Apr  8 06:38:50 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 8-Apr-85 06:38:50 EST
References: <2580@ihuxf.UUCP> <1345@aecom.UUCP> <487@lll-crg.ARPA> <789@bunker.UUCP>, <453@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 19

Byron,
I am operating under the assumption that as people have more time for
leisurely thinking and reflecting and do not have to ``fight for
survival'' they discover moral truths which they had hitherto not
understood. This explains why people discover, quite abruptly, that
actions that they had once considered moral they now consider immoral.

I have no pronblem believing that in a world where Hitler won WW2, most
people would consider Hitler's actions moral. I do not believe that
Hitler's actions would, however, *be* moral. Is your position that
there *are* no absolute morals -- or that we cannot know when we have
discovered them -- or both? In any case, then, I assume that there are
times when you would like to do something which you consider wrong.
(If you have beaten this one, then please tech me! :-) ) At that
point of conflict, why do you decide to try to not do what is wrong
rather than not believe that it is wrong, or vice-versa?

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura