Keebler@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Keebler) (04/12/85)
___________________________________________________________________________ > { from: Steve Aldrich (ihnp4!ihu1n!amra) } > > There's no way I'm going to swallow the argument that Hitler was "wrong" > only because he lost the war. I don't like it either. Unfortunately, you might have to swallow it sooner or later. Unless you are one of those who think that Hitler lost the war because God was not on his side, you have got to start becoming a little bit realistic. (Sorry ... poorly worded ... should not have been so nasty sounding ... please see below.) > This is a very dangerous position to take as there are many who will then > use "similiar means" to "condone" their own actions. I agree that someone somewhere will always abuse it. But that, too, does not invalidate the idea. > In light of this "philosophy" which you and Spence propagated, are/were the > American Indians/Native Americans WRONG to oppose the usurpation of their > lands, culture, population, etc by the "White-Devils"? Obviously, you feel that they are not. But when it comes down to it ... what are the definitions of "right" and "wrong". I think you will have to tackle that before you can say if anyone is right or wrong. A lot of people find it easier to just say that the Word of God is right. Therefore, anything oppos- ing the Scriptures is wrong. I do not condone this method. In fact, I don't see how anyone can universally define "right" or "wrong". It is just what is convenient or existing at the time and place. If you were brought up in a society in which you were taught that the earth is flat, anyone who said that the earth is round is wrong in that society. In our perspective, he is right. Perhaps we may find out some day that the earth is indeed, flat, in which case he is wrong again ... (I know that I am presenting factual ideas, not moral ideas, but you get the point ...) > After all, they were on the "losing-side". Do they have ANY RIGHT to seek > restitution from the "descendants"? I personally would say "no, because it's not the fault of their decendants." I know of court decisions saying the opposite; that the decendants are, in fact, responsible. I think this is also a matter of personal opinion, and is part of moral relativism. > SHould we go ahead and "finish them off" because WE'RE RIGHT? > (According to your theory anyway!) I don't think he would condone that. I certainly would not. I think moral relativism has a lot of room for abuse, but that is not justif- ication for saying that IT is wrong. (After all, if you give its im- plications, you are saying that it is possible. Due to the nature of it, you are in fact saying that it exists. If it does, then it is difficult to say whether it is right or wrong, except through person- al judgement.) > I find such attitudes to be REPREHENSIBLE and Disgusting! Me, too. Unfortunately, this is the attitudes of the pioneers accord- ing to high school text books. Not too good of a picture of our high- ly glorified pioneers. (Remember "manifest destiny"?) ___________________________________________________________________________ Live long and prosper. Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }