From: amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Moral propagationism
Date: 26 Sep 92 21:39:50 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <lc9fjeINNr88@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
(Todd Hoff) writes:

>Please don't confuse my arguments against an absolute moral system with stating 
>that people should not follow a moral system. Real cruelty starts when groups
>of people start seriously believing they have a lock on absolute truth and
>are willing to codify their beliefs into an absolute system of morals. The 
>Nazis in your passage are one such exmaple. Also read the old testament for 
>many more examples of such cruelty.

I agree fully with this.  My use of the word 'absolute' was meant to
emphasize not epistemological certainty, but the unconditional nature
of our moral sense; that it should apply universally to all people.
Your remarks below suggest that you share this view.

>>But I cannot even begin to comprehend why anyone would think
>>that this demonstrated that what the Nazis did was not evil.
>
>Please quote where I said evil does not exist in the world.

Well, you did suggest that the choice between 'moral systems' was
a matter of taste.  I took this to imply that evil acts were evil
only from the vantage point of some people.

 But
>does your sensibilities ragarding what is evil in the world give
>you the power to decide for me what is evil? If so how are you different
>than the Nazis?

I don't think it's a question of me deciding for anyone else what is or
is not evil.  A fairly constant morality has been a vital part of human
societies.  To accept to live in a society is to accept the moral code.

>>Good and evil are not timeless things, they are human concepts.
>>To understand what evil is is central to being a human being.  I do not
>>appeal to a god to support this -- I appeal to contingent human
>>experience. 
>
>OK, let's turn it around a little. Let's say you have the power to
>stop the Nazis from killing 6,000,000 jews, but the only way you can do it
>is to break the mind of the one person who has the power to stop
>the killing. Would you do it? 
>
>Now let's say the most prize possession is this Nazi is an autographed 
>copy of Hitler's Greatest Speaches, it is his Torah. Let's also say this 
>Nazi has a phopia about having others spit in his mouth.
>Your psychologists tell you the only way to save the millions of not
>just Jews, but Gypsies, homosexuals, retarded, and handicapped people
>is to spit in this guys mouth and make him spit on his favorite book.
>Would you do it? 
>
>If you do not millions would die. If you did you would be violating your 
>own moral code. Either way you lose.
>
>I expect you'll say this is more sophistry.

No, not really.  If such an extremely unlikely situation were ever to take
place, I would have no choice but to sacrifice one person so that
millions could live.  I expect that any sane person would do the same.

>>Can you not understand the distinction between this
>>observation about life and your own academic sophistry?
>
>I'm quite far from academic glad to say. And sophistry is
>in the eye of the beholder. But if that helps you more easily
>discount what I say then more power to you.

I don't discount what you say.  I challenge the coherence of your view.
I think it's clear from what I've said that I hold moral relativism to
be an incoherent position.  This is not a personal criticism.  I used
the word 'academic' to emphasize the _theoretical_ and speculative
nature of your views about ethics.  One must take care not to allow
oneself to abstract away the concreteness of ethics.  This is also
a problem with many 'absolutist' views.

-- 
Marko Amnell
amnell@klaava.helsinki.fi
Graduate Student in Philosophy