tonyh29 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 We wouldn't blame a German soldier for deserting. and yet when they follow orders and kill people we do blame them ..who'd be a German solider hey !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Less of the lip please Ryan. sorry, what? "Damn you Rob". Remember there are childern viewing this board. and posting on it, apparently..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 lets face the Media has shaped outr current moral staandards hasn't it Yes, Ian, media probably has. And maybe my moral standards are wrong, even if I don't believe them to be. But you still haven't answered why I can't apply my moral standards on crimes commited during WWI just because society anno 1914 had different views to mine? Based on what you've posted in this thread you come across as philosophically relativist, or even a conformist. Now, that's your perogative, but I'm challenging you to explain why I should apply relativism in my judgement of WWI and all you present to me are, albeit factually correct, merely descriptive points which isn't always that interesting in a normative debate. You've basically said "it is therefore it should be", and if David Hume tought us anything (he was otherwise a bit of a nutter) it is to not make that mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 My apologies, Michelson, I seem to have misunderstood you; I was under the impression that you were refering to an objective universal moral code of what is right and wrong, rather than you having a view of what is right and applying it to everyone, everywhere, and everywhen. Of course if you believe civilisation has progressed that argument becomes invalid, as today's morals standards should be higher than those previously heralded as the absolute. However if you, like me, believe we have regressed then I look forward to enslavery and flogging at regular intervals. I love reading your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 We wouldn't blame a German soldier for deserting. and yet when they follow orders and kill people we do blame them ..who'd be a German solider hey !!That argument is contradictory. We wouldn't blame them for disobeying orders, yet we would blame them for following orders. But you seem to see no way out of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 lets face the Media has shaped outr current moral staandards hasn't it Yes, Ian, media probably has. And maybe my moral standards are wrong, even if I don't believe them to be. But you still haven't answered why I can't apply my moral standards on crimes commited during WWI just because society anno 1914 had different views to mine? Based on what you've posted in this thread you come across as philosophically relativist, or even a conformist. Now, that's your perogative, but I'm challenging you to explain why I should apply relativism in my judgement of WWI and all you present to me are, albeit factually correct, merely descriptive points which isn't always that interesting in a normative debate. You've basically said "it is therefore it should be", and if David Hume tought us anything (he was otherwise a bit of a nutter) it is to not make that mistake. It's simple you or I can say what we think and apply our own standards but soceity can not it is difficult granted but that is how it should be in 40 years times things we do now will be judged wrong but shoudl peopel be excused based on the laws today ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Of course if you believe civilisation has progressed that argument becomes invalid, as today's morals standards should be higher than those previously heralded as the absolute. However if you, like me, believe we have regressed then I look forward to enslavery and flogging at regular intervals. I love reading your posts. Not quite sure how to take that :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 That argument is contradictory. it's ben a long weekend point i was trying to make is that we are allowed to forgive wwI vets for cowardice as it wasn't their fault , but German soliders who followed orders are still fair game to be persecuted 60 years later as they should have questioned those orders and taken a bullet in the back of the head rather than follow orders as they were trained to do yeah , i'm probably not making any sense about now .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 in 40 years times things we do now will be judged wrong but shoudl peopel be excused based on the laws today ? People in 40 years time will make their up their own mind about what is wrong and what is right, and when they do that they should apply their own standards when they judge the actions of today. Things we do today that are right are not right just because that's the way we do things at this moment in history. They are right because they are, well, right. Things people did before that were wrong were not wrong just because it was different from what we do today. They were wrong because they were, well, wrong. That's philosophical absolutism for you. If you're a relativist then that's up to you, but as an absolutist I would have to say you are wrong :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 look I have no idea what the last line means what I do know is that this thread is how society deals with it and that is what changes I think what was done was wrong but I will nto reapply it to events 90 years ago, events we had no control over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 That's philosophical absolutism for you Yes, quite......errrrr I agree. Whos round is it??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 That argument is contradictory.point i was trying to make is that we are allowed to forgive wwI vets for cowardice as it wasn't their fault , but German soliders who followed orders are still fair game to be persecuted 60 years later as they should have questioned those orders and taken a bullet in the back of the head rather than follow orders as they were trained to do OK it's been a long weekend, and the nuremburg trials established the idea that "I was merely following orders" was not a very good defence when you had an option. I am not aware of the ongoing persecution of foot soldiers who had no choice but to shoot at the enemy, though the proxies of the israeli state are tracking down people who were deemed to be have been leaders amongst those who committed attrocities, not the sort of people who had a gun to their backs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 That's philosophical absolutism for you Yes, quite......errrrr I agree. Whos round is it??? I agree Rob, I'm getting another Kilkenny. Good debate, Ian, good debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 look I have no idea what the last line means fair play , they lost me about 2 pages back with their clever words :-) why I can't apply my moral standards on crimes commited during WWI just because society anno 1914 had different views to mine? but who commiteed the crime back in WWI , the deserter who in effect broke the "law" or the army who upheld the law and enforced it ?? even now objecters get discharged from the army , some i think even recieve prison time , ok slightly different from shooting them , but army attitudes to deserters has not changed ..so are their morals wrong ?? to go deeper into your debate , and as slavery was mentioned , lets go back to when it wasn't illegal to keep a slave , so lets say for example your great great great great etc uncle , kept a slave ..he may have treated his slave well , but a slave he had nether the less .... now like we said , it wasn't illegal in his day ... but , now that it IS illegal is it really fair to apply your moral standards on what is now in effect a crime , before it was indeed a crime ? if the christian society hadn't acted to abolish slavery years back , would your current moral code even register slavery as immoral ? would keeping a slave be deemed Ok for example , but chaining them and beating them with a stick breaking moral standards guess what I'm saying as , however right your moral standards are , and they seem spot on from here , can they really be used to judge the past ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 guess what I'm saying as , however right your moral standards are , and they seem spot on from here , can they really be used to judge the past ? I believe they can, and indeed should, and I think I've spent the last two hours explaining why to Ian. I won't do it again. I'm busy drinking ale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 I'm busy drinking ale i hope for you sake society won't look back harshly on you when alcohol is outlawed and considered immoral 90 years from now :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 I'm busy drinking ale i hope for you sake society won't look back harshly on you when alcohol is outlawed and considered immoral 90 years from now :-) Well, according to my moral standards, they would be wrong in doing so (outlawing alcohol, that is) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Of course today's morals can be used to judge the past. Otherwise have we progressed. Some might say that colonialisation brought third world countries out of their feudal cultures. Whether or not that argument is correct, surely that is using your own current moral position to say ridiculous things such as The British Empire is the greatest thing that ever happened to the worldOf course if you believe that we have no jurisdiction over the way people lived their lives in days gone, then such an argument would be a falseood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Well, according to my moral standards, they would be wrong in doing so (outlawing alcohol, that is) The research into the global burden of disease attributable to alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs found that in 2000, around 1.8 million deaths were attributable to the use of alcohol interesting moral code you have .... (sorry , was too tempting not to publish it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 It must be said that Michelsen does have a rather authoriitarian (nanny state) streak as long as it doesn't apply to his own values. I'd agree with you on that Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts