Welcome to Gaia! ::

@Raven: You might actually. There was an underground that recognized Hitler was wrong.

Of topic for a minute. Is it wierd that I come onto some of your threads looking for a fight? I know that we're not going to agree with each other on this stuff and at some points I get incredibly frustrated by some of your views (as I'm sure you do mine and others') but I post anyway. That's actually why I debate with you. Sometimes I just like to argue and I know that with you I can at least get a spirited conversation that won't devolve into insults and name calling.

Back on topic "Fallen Men"? What would those be exaclty. I have a suspicion that it's some Christiany thing that I'm not going to believe in or agree with.

Chapter 13

College Daze

I was sitting in a college class discussing other cultures, when I inadvertently used a naughty word that brought the entire class to a halt.

The word was uncivilized.

Specifically, I had referred to the cultural custom , formerly practiced in India, of burning alive the living widow of a deceased male.

“It was uncivilized, and the British were right to put an end to it,” I said.

All heck broke loose.

“That is ethnocentric!”

“That presumes one people has the right to impose its own morality on another people!”

“The term ‘uncivilized’ is a value judgment!”

I then did another bad thing. I stuck to my position.

“I believe in value judgments. World War II was, in large part, a huge value judgment. The Nazis and the Fascists had a morally inferior position that allowed unprovoked aggression and the wholesale slaughter of entire groups of people. The United States and the Allied armies were right to stop them by force..”

Oodles more heck broke loose.

“So are you saying that all Americans were morally superior to all Germans or Italians?” huffed one student.
“No, but I am saying that the position of America was morally superior to what Hitler stood for.”

“I disagree with Hitler’s position, but I don’t think I would use the term ‘morally superior,’” chimed in another student. “I would be comfortable saying that I personally disagreed with him, but I don’t see how we can say we were ‘morally right’ and he was ‘morally wrong’ because morality is a culturally determined thing. It isn’t as though there is a single, objective standard that exists out there.”

I am not making this stuff up. This exchange actually took place. On college campuses today, it is entirely possible to find lots of students who are unwilling to say that Adolph Hitler was morally wrong by any universal standard. They’ll be quick to say they disagree with him, that they are repulsed by him, that they would have resisted him–but they can’t say he was “wrong” by any objective, transcendent moral law. All that exists is individual preference.

“Let’s do a role play,” I suggested. “Let’s pretend that I am a guy named Heinrich Himmler and you are all Jews. I have a gun, and you do not. We are in Germany in 1942. It is the official position of the German Government that Jews are an inferior race who must be eliminated. If morality is determined by the culture, then I would be on morally defensible ground to put a bullet in your brain. Convince me not to shoot, or I will open fire on you one by one.”

There was a stunned silence. Finally, one student spoke up.

“I would try to persuade him that Jews were not inferior.”

“I’m unconvinced,” I replied.

BLAM!

One down, twenty to go.

“I would say that I personally disagree with taking an innocent life,” ventured another.

“Your disagreement has been noted,” I replied.

BLAM!

I continued to pick them off, one by one, because not one student could articulate any reason other than some form of the statement, “I disagree with you.”

Finally, an exasperated student snapped, “I don’t think it is fair for you to throw these kinds of hypothetical situations at us.”

“it isn’t hypothetical,” I
retorted. “there really was a guy named Himmler, and he worked under Hitler, and eliminating Jews was in his job description. And you can’t even tell the guy that what he is doing is wrong, because you don’t believe in any objective standard of right and wrong. All you have is preferences. But he has his own preferences. And he prefers to have you dead.”

BLAM!

“Do you realize the enormity of what you believe?” I asked. “You are saying that throwing people in an oven or not throwing them in an oven are nothing more than issues of personal preference. It is precisely that kind of thinking that makes genocide possible. Someone please give Himmler a reason not to pull the trigger again. Even if he ignores you, give him something better than ‘I disagree with your preference.’”

I finally ended up facing a young woman who looked me in the eye and said, “God will judge you for every innocent life you take.”

That was one of the few rational thoughts uttered that day.

The period ended and the class was dismissed.

As I made my way toward my next class, a student ran up to me. It was the guy who complained that my “hypothetical” situation was unfair.

“I really do believe that Hitler was wrong,” he said, his brow furrowed in dismay.

“Was he wrong by any universally binding standard” Or do you just mean you personally don’t like what he did?”

The poor guy was in agony. Every commonsense impulse in him told him to agree that Hitler was a moral atrocity. His own conscience was almost audibly screaming at him to agree that throwing babies into an oven is a horrific moral outrage that is a universal WRONG! But years of university nonsense had persuaded him that only a cretin believed that some things are always right and some things are always wrong. In the end, all he could do was tell me that personally, he really, really, really disagreed with Hitler.

He kept walking with me.

Finally, I turned to him and said, “You know deep down that genocide is wrong. You know it because in your heart you are better than your creed.”

We parted company on that note.

This is an except from a hilarious Christian book I read today that had me thinking about it:
What do you think? Are all morals personal? Or are there some things that are just plain wrong? And off-topic, would you want to read a book where a study guide question asks you if it's irritating that the author doesn't have to put anything in the study guide? xd (he does that. I adore this author rofl whee )