Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mcnc.mcnc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!bch
From: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Hitler and Moral Relativism
Message-ID: <462@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Apr-85 00:23:56 EST
Article-I.D.: mcnc.462
Posted: Wed Apr 10 00:23:56 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Apr-85 00:15:42 EST
References: <2580@ihuxf.UUCP> <1345@aecom.UUCP> <487@lll-crg.ARPA> <789@bunker.UUCP> <453@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP> <5441@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service
Lines: 48
Summary: 

In article <5441@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP writes:
>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.

If I read this correctly, you believe in a kind of moral evolution conver-
ging on an "absolute" morality.  I don't buy this.  First, human beings
have not had to fight for survival (in a general sense) for quite some time.
Second, it doesn't account for the enormous moral reversions (like Nazi
Germany or Khomeni's Iran or the tail end of the Roman Empire) which history
shows us.  It seems equally likely that with the mutability of cultural norms
people consider choices to be moral that the once thought immoral (like
premarital sex.)  Be aware that very few people think they perform immoral
acts.

>I have no problem 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 teach 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?
 
My position is that there is no absolute morality.  There are, however,
social conventions which need to be observed for pragmatic reasons --
it's easier to get along that way!  Too, one is thoroughly permeated
by the norms of one's culture -- violations of those norms bring strong
internal sanctions called guilt.

I, like you, am a creature of my society.  Activities which are strongly
culturally proscribed (like making love to my sister) have no possibility
of being admitted to the set of activities I'd like to engage in.

Others, like driving 110 mph on the freeway or engaging in illegal betting,
would simply make my life too messy.  Most low-grade "wrongs" I have to
meet and deal with on an individual basis.  It isn't really a point of
conflict, more a point of balance.  Like most, I've had to change my
moral precepts as the outcomes of my actions proved socially profitable or
expensive.

-- 

						Byron C. Howes
				      ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch