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!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!bch
From: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Hitler and Moral Relativism
Message-ID: <467@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Apr-85 15:58:46 EST
Article-I.D.: mcnc.467
Posted: Wed Apr 10 15:58:46 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Apr-85 04:12:58 EST
References: <487@lll-crg.ARPA> <789@bunker.UUCP> <453@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP> <4651@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Distribution: net
Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service
Lines: 67
Summary: 

In article <4651@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes:

>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?
 
I'm not sure I follow this argument.  Individual standards of morality *are*
ignored.  Ask the creationists, Ken Arndt or Rich Rosen :-)  I would 
maintain that there is no such thing as an individual standard, by defi-
nition.  When one talks about morality one talks about values and standards
shared with others.

The reason Nazism is deemed evil is that its values come into sharp conflict
with those values common to so many cultures that they are deemed universal
or "absolute."  In much earlier times where genocide was construed as a
legitimate technique of war, Nazism might not have been considered as quite
such an evil.  (Must we bring up the Midianites again?)  Percentages don't
make sense in this context, it is the preponderance of shared values.

>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 don't follow this either.  My point about white southerners is simply that
despite the fact that many (including myself) consider racism and sexism
to be inherently evil, there are others who consider segregation and
traditional sexual values to be moral precepts, worth fighting for.  (Note
the change in words.)  These people are by all objective measures very
moral people -- following a set of values held strongly in this country
up till the last twenty years.  Those values are gradually being swept away
(or broken up, depending on your point of view) This is a change in values,
not a change in the people who subscribe to them.  Is this progression to
some absolute morality?  Make a case for it.   

>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.

Just because I don't believe that the rules I live by were handed down
by G-d doesn't mean I don't take them seriously.  Justice, fairness and
equality are very serious things to me -- I believe a society which practices
them is a better society because more people are able to make substantive
contributions.  If it's better for society, then it's better for my life
as well.  (Anyone who quotes the previous sentence out of context will be
severely flamed.)

The complaint that nobody has a right to force their system on another
is an interesting one.  Generally, this is said in a context where socially
unimportant (read contested) areas of morality are under discussion.
Society forces its morality on individuals all the time.  That's why we
have so many folks in prison for murder, rape, armed robbery, etc.  That's
also why we have an ever growing population in mental wards.  Myself, I
think the statement is an expression of another seeming "absolute."  This
is a very pluralistic society, freedom of expression and thought are 
valued so highly that to try to supress them is deemed immoral?  What's
that?  Do I hear the sound of another breakdown in morality?

-- 

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