Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Hitler and Moral Relativism
Message-ID: <4651@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Apr-85 16:45:22 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.4651
Posted: Mon Apr  8 16:45:22 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Apr-85 00:04:41 EST
References: <487@lll-crg.ARPA> <789@bunker.UUCP> <453@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 27

The most important problem I see with all this talk of moral relativism is
that there seems to be the implication that individual standards of morality
can be ignored.  Let us suppose, for instance, a Nazi world government.  How
many dissenters does it take before Nazism becomes evil?  51%? 20%? 1?

Jumping back to Martin Luther King: does a white southerner have a moral
obligation to conform to the accepted views on him?  According to Byron, it
seems to me that he does, since dissent is viewed as socially disruptive and
thus bad.

I agree that there is an element of relativity inherent in moral systems.
People just don't agree on the same things, although the degree of
conformity is considerably higher than most tend to think (ignoring purely
procedural differences).  On the other hand, even people who claim to
believe in relativism tend not to take it too seriously.  To claim that no
one has a right to force their system on another, for instance, is to deny
relativity; suddenly this right has become absolute.

It seems to me that most people tend to follow what I'll call a "basis"
system.  People by and large agree on a certain basic set of standards,
which are treated as absolute.  On top of this there are various regional,
group, and personal standards, which are treated as being relative.  Under
such a system, for instance, the orthodox jew and the christian agree to
forbid murder, but agree not to pressure each other to violate their private
standards.  U.S. law is based on just this sort of system.

Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe