[quote]wfifer wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]wfifer wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Um, what? You’re telling me that millions and millions of Germans, members of said National Socialist Party, mind you, both military and civilian, did NOT agree with the Nazi Party? These people were all coerced?
You mean relative morality?
And how does one go about determining this “authenticity?”
Remember that thing about having to twist logic I mentioned just a few paragraphs back? [/quote]
I appreciate you breaking down my argument to such an extent, honestly. It doesn’t happen often.
Do you think, morally, all those millions and millions were okay with the conduct of the Nazi Party? I refer you to Stanley Milgram’s experiment regarding obedience to authority figures. Not only is this sort of thing not uncommon, I dare say it’s the norm. You give people entirely too much credit.
Yes, relative morality has to be authentic. Assume from now on that I am only speaking about morality in relative terms, because I don’t believe in absolute morality.
Authenticity is an existentialist term. I assumed you would be familiar with this. Might want to do some reading.
Again, I’m not twisting logic. I have a clear definition for what morality is. And it is not something forced on you, nor is it passivity in the face of a more willful morality.
In any country at any time, there are things going on with which the vast majority of the population would not agree. And yet they persist. The greater the population, the less likely it is that any one individual is going to do anything about it. It’s the bystander effect, psychology 101. [/quote]
Wait a minute, so do societies collectively decide upon a morality or do they not?
Or do you just get to say which society came to an authentic consensus and which didn’t? There are plenty of accounts of the average German citizen having a fairly good idea that something pretty bad was happening. So, you are telling me that at some point everything flipped over from a consensual morality to a coerced one?
It appears you will excuse the average German’s passivity, and assume that the vast majority of the populace was not really in agreement with the Party. That millions and millions of them were secretly sympathizing with the Allies and just praying for the day the Allied powers would break through and liberate them from the oppressive National Socialist government, under which they lived in a constant state of fear. Perhaps also the average German was not a vehement racist and anti-Semite, but a noble if terrified lover of humanity? There was no collective agreement that led to all of this, either? I guess you might even agree that the typical Nazi soldier and even officer was “just following orders,” no?
Anyway, all of this begs the question, if we are talking here, both assuming that the National Socialist party of the '30s and '40s was a really bad group that did some really bad, dare I say evil things, then we are both assuming a standard of morality against which to judge this society. You said yourself that murder is a no-no. Easy to argue that if you can just say that every society that has ever engaged in the systematic practice of it didn’t really have any say it its own participation. Does this apply to the Spartan’s and their baby murders, as well? They were coerced? Or does baby-murder fall under the umbrella of relativity, thereby excusable? The Aztec populace regularly engaged in cannibalism of their sacrificial victims…because they were, like, against sacrifice and all but how can we let all this good meat go to waste?
I’m honestly not being facetious here. I really do not see any sort of consistency in this argument, again, without making all sorts of excuses and complicated explanations for heinous behavior. Which, if we are being honest here, should not matter, because if there are NO absolutes (haha, get it?) then the most heinous behavior had better either be considered acceptable. Otherwise you are going to have to admit that there is a standard (ie Absolute) that you are judging it against.
[/quote]
I’m kind of skimming through at this point, because you’re not listening to me. I’m not saying murder is absolutely bad. I honestly don’t know where you got that impression.
What I SAID was that if you collectively decide that murder is bad, then, relative to your group, murder is bad. Personally, murder is against my moral code. A moral code which I will readily admit to anyone is completely relative. I have reasons, obviously, but they are not absolute. I could not tell you objectively why murder is wrong.
As for the Germans, I’m not excusing any of them. I just don’t think that whole situation was an issue of morality. I don’t think their collective morality was “it’s okay to murder people who aren’t like us.” This also begs the question, can people act in ways contrary to their morality? You seem to think not. Obviously I disagree. I again point to Milgram. [/quote]
It’s not that I’m not listening to you, it’s that I’m attempting to demonstrate to you that the foundation of your belief is built on wet sand.
If you admit that your moral code is “completely relative,” (your amusing words), then you might as well call it “arbitrary horseshit.” It is anything but. I’ll wager your morality just happens to follow many, probably most of the tenets of the Judeo-Christian morality (let me guess, in addition to murder, I’ll bet you try your best not to lie, cheat, steal, or kick old ladies, no?).
So, you’ve arrogated to yourself a morality largely based upon nothing less than the word of God as our predecessors understood it, and have the audacity to imply you came up with it yourself.
When I confront your contention that societies agree upon morality collectively, you dismiss it with an excuse that, well, that society didn’t agree collectively.
If you think I’m not getting what you are saying, it’s because it doesn’t make sense. If your entire point is, “hey man, I’m just saying that it’s all relative,” then I am challenging you to demonstrate that this is so, because I have so far not seen one single argument that has come close to convincing me that murder, cheating, greed, backstabbing, cowardice or theft can somehow be made into virtues, or that integrity, honesty, charity, bravery, neighborliness, or love can somehow be made into some kind of vice.
Please do not respond one more time saying that I am not getting your point. I’m making my own point here. I’m challenging you to provide some, any evidence that your premises are indeed correct. That you merely believe it to be so does not make it such.
