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: <476@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Apr-85 14:07:35 EST
Article-I.D.: mcnc.476
Posted: Fri Apr 12 14:07:35 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Apr-85 06:49:19 EST
References: <2580@ihuxf.UUCP> <1345@aecom.UUCP> <487@lll-crg.ARPA> <789@bunker.UUCP> <453@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP> <5460@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service
Lines: 53
Summary: 

In article <5460@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes:
>I have 2 ways of explaining Hitlers. The first is that, like everything
>else, people can make mistakes in perceiving what is good. This is
>the ``most people do not think that they are doing immoral acts''
>propostition -- they are just making mistakes. The other way, which I
>think is more applicable to Hitler, is that *some* people, while
>perceiving what is good, choose to do evil anyway.
 
As Laura and I are proceeding from entirely different sets of axioms, there
are a limited number of ways we can communicate.  I would agree with the
first explanation above if "people can make mistakes in understanding the
cultural definitions of 'good'" were its intended meaning.  I suspect,
however, that Laura has a more absolute notion of "good" in mind.  Even
then, I could agree with her had the statement been phrased "people make
mistakes in perceiving a higher 'good'" which leads us to the next
explanation...

I honestly do not believe that anyone ever chooses to do evil at least
without mitigation of a perceived long term higher "good" in which case
the evil becomes, in effect, a good.  We bar from this discussion the
organically ill who believe they are controlled by voices, demons from
within or rays from elsewhere -- they are not able to 'choose' in a
meaningful way.  Hitler, Attila the Hun, Jim Jones, Stalin, King David,
John Brown, Sitting Bull, Moses, Judas Iscariot, St. Joan, etc. all 
acted in the service of what they perceived to be a higher "good."  
Sometimes this notion corresponded with what we perceive to be "good,"
and sometimes it did not.  The evaluation is purely subjective.
Objectively there is no way to tell the difference.

>A few weeks ago a psychiatrist on staff at the St. Michael's (Roman
>Catholic) hospital commented that he was upset that no abortions were
>being performed there. His position was that if he could get the
>director of the hospital and others opposed to the practice in for
>psychotherapy 3 days a week that in 3 years he could ``cure'' them
>of their ``squeamishness''. 
>
>The question I have is, is ``inconvenience'' all that matters? Is
>that all that keeps you from getting your ``squeamishness'' cured?

Just because I do not believe in an absolute morality that will result
in punishment if breached, does not mean I do not have personal 
principles.  I suspect it would be as difficult to disabuse me of
my personal notions of right and wrong as it would anyone else who
posts to this group.  The difference is only that I do not believe my
values are eternally immutable, nor do I believe they should hold great
significance to others.  I do not adopt a value based on the abstract
notion of an absolute morality or rule.  It must have some pragmatic
reason behind it insofar as I am able to determine with my built-in
cultural biases.
-- 

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