mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (04/03/85)
In article <487@lll-crg.ARPA> muffy@lll-crg.UUCP (Muffy Barkocy) writes: >Actually, if Hitler had won, he would indeed have been correct. Not from >*my* point of view, of course, but I would be dead. In fact, as I recall, >he wanted to kill everyone who didn't believe as he did, so the only people >left alive would be those that agreed with him, or said they did. Regard- >less of what you may believe, "right" and "wrong" are societally defined, >they are *not* inborn. Thus, if everyone in my society thinks as I do, >then I am right. If Hitler killed off all the people that didn't think as >he did, his society would have agreed with him, and he would be right. So I guess Martin Luther King Jr. was an immoral person, since his morality was in conflict with his society. And I suppose that we, as Americans, had no right to move against Hitler, or to condemn his actions. Sorry Muffy, this line of argument was refuted a long time ago. Pure cultural relativism just doesn't cut it. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (04/04/85)
In article <487@lll-crg.ARPA> muffy@lll-crg.UUCP (Muffy Barkocy) writes: >>Actually, if Hitler had won, he would indeed have been correct. Not from >>*my* point of view, of course, but I would be dead. In fact, as I recall, >>he wanted to kill everyone who didn't believe as he did, so the only people >>left alive would be those that agreed with him, or said they did. Regard- >>less of what you may believe, "right" and "wrong" are societally defined, >>they are *not* inborn. Thus, if everyone in my society thinks as I do, >>then I am right. If Hitler killed off all the people that didn't think as >>he did, his society would have agreed with him, and he would be right. In article <4511@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: >So I guess Martin Luther King Jr. was an immoral person, since his morality >was in conflict with his society. And I suppose that we, as Americans, had >no right to move against Hitler, or to condemn his actions. Sorry Muffy, >this line of argument was refuted a long time ago. Pure cultural relativism >just doesn't cut it. I fear I agree with Muffy on this one. Perhaps in Maryland Martin Luther King is a saint, but you don't have to go too far outside Chapel Hill, N.C. to get a very different picture -- this among some otherwise very moral people. We only have to look at the history of this country to see cultural rela- tivism in action. 200 years ago slavery was "right." It was defended in most churches and legitimized in the Articles of confederation. A straw poll (among the landed) would have confirmed that most thought it was "right." Of course we all know better now, but where did our enlightenment come from? I don't believe it is because we are on some moral track toward absolute and perfect right, but believe it is because of a cultural change induced by the fact that slavery became distinctly unprofitable. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch