For all you moral relitivists

[scottlittlefield17]

In the Nuremberg Nazi war crime trials the defense attorneys argued that the German defendants were only doing what their culture taught them. They were taught it and believed and they were only doing what their culture deemed morally correct. The only way the Allied lawyers could get a conviction was to cite the fact that there is a certain moral code that all men must go by. And if that code is broken they must be punished. So isn't it true that there are some moral absolutes? And if not, do you disagree with the guilty rulings the allied judges handed down?

[McCulloch]

In these trials, the legal basis was violations of international law and the laws of war as they were understood at the outbreak of war on September 3, 1939. The indictments were for:

1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace
2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
3. War crimes
4. Crimes against humanity

They were tried under Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907.

[Abraxas]

Well, if you reject morality wholly (as I do), it becomes neither morally wrong nor morally right. That said, punishing people for inflicting gross abuse on other human beings is a desirable outcome, if not a morally good one, and so I have no problems with how they achieved that endpoint even if it meant appeals to universal morality (though McCulloch may have just demonstrated that is perhaps not the whole picture, or for that matter, even part of it).

Whether there exists an absolute morality that can be appealed to is a very separate question from whether society provides more benefit and is more pleasant if we act as though we do. If we find that is how we want society to be for us, we might as well run with it even if we don't have a strictly logical basis for assuming it is objectively correct.

[McCulloch]

Is there moral absolutes

Yes, one should never violate subject-verb agreement.

[scottlittlefield17]

Ok, if every culture has the right to define its own morality than what basis do we have to condemn other cultures acts of violence. Saddam Hussein and Muslim extremists come to mind. Also why are there some laws pertaining to morality that EVERY culture has in common, from the elite of Paris to the gangs in NYC?

I have no problems with how they achieved that endpoint even if it meant appeals to universal morality

So you are saying you have no problem with the lawyers using false evidence? Especially since we are talking the death sentence?

One other age old question. Are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?

[scottlittlefield17]

Yes, one should never violate subject-verb agreement.

Point well received, I noticed it as soon as I saw it after I submitted it but it was to late to change it!

[scottlittlefield17]

NOTICE, I DO NOT HOLD THE VIEWS I AM PROMOTING. I BELIEVE FIRMLY IN MORAL AND PHYSICAL ABSOLUTES. I AM SIMPLY TRYING TO MAKE SOME POINTS.

In these trials, the legal basis was violations of international law and the laws of war as they were understood at the outbreak of war on September 3, 1939.

What right do we have to push our cultural understanding of morals onto others? We have our own system, they had theirs. You say there were "understood", understood by whom? Obviously not the German army! How can we say "You understanding of morals is wrong, mine are right, therefore I condemn you to DEATH for breaking my understanding of morals? On a little different vein the United Nations is a direct contradiction to the humanistic sociology in that they are trying to make everybody adopt some of the same morals.They are messing with natural course of societies methods of coming to conclusions about morality and passing them on to their children.

[McCulloch]

What right do we have to push our cultural understanding of morals onto others?

This is on a larger scale, the same as the application of laws on an individual living in a society. Not because morals are absolute necessarily, but because we collectively impose rules on members of society for the smooth running of society.

Similarly, Germany was held to the standards of international law held collectively by the community of nations of which it was a participating member.

[JBlack]

Also why are there some laws pertaining to morality that EVERY culture has in common, from the elite of Paris to the gangs in NYC?

What laws pertaining to morality do gangs is NYC have in common with elites in Paris? And which of these laws is also shared by every culture?

[Abraxas]

I have no problems with how they achieved that endpoint even if it meant appeals to universal morality

So you are saying you have no problem with the lawyers using false evidence? Especially since we are talking the death sentence?

One other age old question. Are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?

I don't know that they did, and from a statistical standpoint they probably believed it to be true when they said it. Most people do believe in an objective morality and I certainly wouldn't hold it against them for saying so. As I said, I reject the idea of objective morality, however, that being said, I never asserted it does not exist.

I view it in the same light I do God; though I do not myself believe they exist, I make room for the possibility that they do though if you are going to claim they do the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this is so. Thus to answer your age old question, no, but you have to prove there are if you want to claim there are.