Wacka Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 Here is a great column I found by Ben Stein: Bulletin from Ben For those of you who only know him from Ferris Bueller's Day Off (Bueller?... Bueller?) or Comedy Central, he is also an economist (served in the Nixon White house) and a lawyer (was and may still be a prof at Pepperdine). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 Here is a great column I found by Ben Stein: Bulletin from Ben For those of you who only know him from Ferris Bueller's Day Off (Bueller?... Bueller?) or Comedy Central, he is also an economist (served in the Nixon White house) and a lawyer (was and may still be a prof at Pepperdine). 411887[/snapback] Okay, George Bush was sent by God. He convinced me. I'll stop worrying about voting for him or not and simply worship him. The funny thing about moral relativism is that everyone deplores it and everyone embraces it. Relativism simply recognizes that one size fits all justice can result in an injustice. It doesn't mean, as Stein seems to think, that there are not actions which are criminal, deplorable, terrible, abominable, etc, etc. A child shop lifting a piece of gum is theft, so is an adult shop lifting a $10,000 gold necklace. Should they both get 15 years? Theft is theft, right? We all consider the facts and circumstances of an act in determining the appropriate response. It is not a case of excusing conduct as Stein implies, it is a matter of determining the appropriate punishment. Some of the examples he uses are pretty selective and truncated just enough to jam into his thesis. Neville Chamberlain wasn't a moral relativist, quite the contrary. He wasn't excusing German actions, he was hoping to avoid a war that couldn't be avoided. He was also recognizing that Germany was armed to the teeth and ready for war while the rest of Europe was not. He simply couldn't face the fact that the awful death and destruction of the War to end all wars was about to be repeated. And so he deluded himself into thinking he could negotiate out of it. The idea that Chamberlain sat around thinking, "you know, relatively speaking, Hitler isn't such a bad guy after all, by jove, I think I'll give him Austria..." is comical. By the way, using a Hitler reference I believe is a no-no here, I think you owe me a toaster or a plate of retatta or something like that. What Stein deplores as relativism is more accurately described as realism. There are "enemies of the human spirit" everywhere, not just in the middle east. Does that mean that we need to invade every nation with this problem? Should we invade China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan and half a dozen other lands? If not, why not? Could it be that reality dictates that we can't dig evil out of every miserable hole in the planet so we have to, gasp, consider the facts and circumstances and do only what is realistically possible? Sounds relative to me. 1. Relativists and absolutists would agree, Saddam was evil, no question. 2. They would also agree that we can't go to war with every miscreant society on earth all at once. 3. The only potential disagreement is, based on the all the facts and circumstances, should we go to war with Iraq? At this point, it is more a question of whether it was or wasn't a smart idea to have gone to war in Iraq. The determination of that question has nothing do to with excusing the conduct of anyone. Sure it is pure evil to behead civilians, sure it is pure good to help kids in Mosul. What would Ben say about bombing a city and killing, unintentionally, many innocent civilians including kids? How about gunning down an innocent man in a train station in London? Are those acts pure good, pure evil or, all in all (ie, relatively) good. What Ben does here is invent a version of moral relativism that its adherents wouldn't recognize and then he pins it on people who don't at all believe or practice this imaginary philosophy he has invented. Then he demolishes them with extreme examples like sawing heads off and saving kids rather than looking at the close calls in the middle, the difficult calls that would challenge the thinking of relativists and absolutists alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 As time goes by, I come to realize that George Bush, with all of his faults, is the spiritual heir to Abraham Lincoln, to Martin Luther King, Jr., to Winston Churchill, to the late Pope John Paul II. The spirits of Abraham Lincoln, MLK Jr., Sir Winston and JPII respond in unison, " . " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts