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: <468@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Apr-85 00:56:08 EST
Article-I.D.: mcnc.468
Posted: Thu Apr 11 00:56:08 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Apr-85 02:45:23 EST
References: <2580@ihuxf.UUCP> <1345@aecom.UUCP> <487@lll-crg.ARPA> <789@bunker.UUCP> <453@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP> <5119@cbscc.UUCP>
Reply-To: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service
Lines: 35
Summary: 

In article <5119@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP writes:
 
>We tend more often to think in terms of absolute morality when considering
>human rights without which your less melodramatic situations couldn't even
>be considered.  (In a predominantly Nazi society there wouldn't be any Orthodox
>Jews to feed pork to, would there?  And if Hitler smoked, there probably
>would be no such thing as non-smoking restaruants.)  The founders of
>our country and framers of our Constitution considered life, liberty
>and the pursuit of happiness to be among these "inalienable" rights.  What
>place do inalienable rights have in moral relativism?  I agree with Gary
>that it is indeed a dangerous philosophy (or "way of thinking" or whatever).

I'll answer your statements with a question adapted from one originally
posed by Tim Maroney:  Why do we consider it immoral for Hitler to have
attempted genocide against the Jews while we seem to consider it moral
for the Israelites to have attempted genocide against the Midianites.  I
submit that the morality of a particular act depends upon whether you
are the actor or the one acted upon (or allies thereof.)  If moral precepts
were applied consistantly throughout history by those who assert an
"absolute morality" I could be persuaded that such a thing exists.  I do
not find such evidence, hence moral relativism.

I'm glad that the founders of our country declared life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness to be "inalienable rights."  It makes life considerably
more pleasant here than it would be elsewhere.  I note in passing that
imprisonment, death penalties, legislated inqualities on the basis of sex,
immigration restrictions etc etc suggest that our "inalienable rights" are
quite abridgeable if the culture demands.  (This is not a statement of
approval or disapproval of death penalties or imprisonment.  It is merely
the observation although "inalienable" means not abridgeable, such rights
may be taken away anyway.)
-- 

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