Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 1770715" data-attributes="member: 3146">Not really. The assumption that only moral absolutism enables horrific acts is in error. Moral relativism has been taught as a means to break down resistance to inflicting such horror in quite a few instances. I believe it was taught in communist nations as a means to break down inhibitions against such things as torture and atrocities. (Since I don't remember my source for that, it might not have been taught (or it may have been intended to simply make way for a new socialist "morality")--however, Richard Wurmbrand's testimony of the tortures he endured amply demonstrates that it was learned anyway and played that role).One might also point out that, practically speaking, opposing evil requires actually believing that you are *right* to do so.  The people who *actually* fought the Nazis generally believed that what they were doing was right. (In fact, this was the subject of much propaganda--and despite that, I think it is still true). Tell people that there's no such thing as justice and there's no reason to fight the Nazis. Why not just join them? After all, if there is no right and wrong then there's nothing *wrong* with doing so. (And, as Ghenghis Khan testifies, there's something to be said for driving your enemies before you, slaughtering them, ravishing their wives and taking their children into slavery--if it's not wrong, why deny yourself those pleasures if they're available and will, even better, win you the approval of your Nazi friends (which is, morally speaking, just as worthwhile as that of their opponents)). If you want to talk about the Nazis or Bin Ladin being bad, you're either a hypocrite or you're not a moral relativist.I won't speak for DrifterBob but it's certainly a defensible position. Far more so than simple relativism. Personally, I'm still undecided between moral objectivism and absolutism.Ahh, the classic blunder of the moral relativist--assuming that everyone behaves the same. Unless you believe the now-discredited testimony of certain individuals who claimed to have committed war crimes in the '70s but then backed off of those claims admitting that they never actually did or witnessed what they claimed but were merely reporting things that were told to them (by individuals--some of whom now claim that they were told what to say), neither US soldiers in Vietnam nor in Iraq behaved in the manner DrifterBob described. Yes, there were disgraceful incidents (Mai Lai and Abu Ghraib come to mind) but they pale in comparison to the conduct of the Germans on the soviet front, the conduct of the Soviets themselves (if I recall my Gulag Archipelago correctly, entire divisions were  executed if they were cut off from the chain of command) and others. That's not to say that Americans are saints. (The disgraceful incidents of post WWII America also pale in comparison to Wounded Knee, etc if my history books are accurate). However, the cheap and easy relativism of "they're all the same anyway" is a load of hogwash. People are not all the same. Nations are not all the same. (Even the same nation over different years will not be the same). And their conduct shows it.Is that true? Absolutely? Or is that just your perspective? And, if it is just your perspective, why should anyone else care? (That is, if it's not *right* to seek the truth).</blockquote>

Verification