Text 11936, 85 rader
Skriven 2005-04-20 20:26:22 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
  Kommentar till text 11903 av VERN HUMPHREY (1:123/140)
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
20 Apr 05 15:56, VERN HUMPHREY wrote to JOHN HULL:

 JH>> VH> But that has nothing to do with morality -- as I said, if a
 JH>> VH> society at a particular time sanctions killing Jews, is that 
 JH>> VH> okay?

 JH>>It isn't a question of whether its right or wrong, its a question 
 JH>>of did it happen or not.  Judging prior events by our standards is 
 JH>>unfair because it distorts history itself and skews our view of 
 JH>>history which prevents us from learning from prior events.

 VH> I will point out that NOT judging some events is what prevents us 
 VH> from learning.

I didn't say NOT to judge.  I said judge based on the context of the event.

 VH> Suppose we never judged the Holocaust?  Or Segregation?  Or Lynch 
 VH> law?

Those are all in OUR context.


 JH>> VH> Was the Holocaust right?  Was the Collectivization Famine 
 JH>> VH> right? Was the Killing Fields of Cambodia right?  Was the 
 JH>> VH> genocide of the Armenians by the Turks right?

 JH>>Of course they weren't right, but they were wrong in the context of 
 JH>>their ow times.  We don't have to condemn them by OUR morality for 
 JH>>them to be wrong.

 VH> Who said they were wrong?  Not the nations that perpetrated them!

They were condemned in their own time, though, weren't they?  


 VH> If you grant each time immunity from moral judgement, you must 
 VH> realize what you are really doing is granting a CULTURE immunity.

I didn't grant anybody immunity from anything.

 VH> If we are to learn, we must have an external, objective moral yardstick. 
 VH> And we must use that yardstick to judge past events -- or else how can we 
 VH> learn?

And you build that yardstick by looking at how events in history were judged in
their own times, THEN deciding if that event is consistent with what WE feel is
moral or immoral.  Too many people forget putting things into proper context
and perspective and jump right to OUR moral values without figuring out WHY
something happened that way it did.


 JH>> VH> You've talked yourself in a circle.  We can indeed use history 
 JH>> VH> to see what is immoral -- and in fact, to see how small things 
 JH>> VH> can lead to great injustices.

 JH>>I haven't done any such thing.  I don't have a problem separately 
 JH>>the events history from my personal moral feelings.  History is a 
 JH>>series of events and have to study it without the burden of our own 
 JH>>morality getting in the way w trying to trace the cause and effect 
 JH>>of those events.  Those events, in fact are the foundation for what 
 JH>>we use to decide what is right today.

 JH>>History to me is a giant layer cake.  At the end of each day, 
 JH>>somebody sprea a new layer on top of the old.  When I study it, I 
 JH>>peel back the layers and evaluate what that layer contains in its 
 JH>>own context, and in context with th layers before and after it.  I 
 JH>>don't assign values to that layer based on th top layer.  Right and 
 JH>>wrong is basically deciding what works and what doesn' work 
 JH>>historically speaking.

 VH> The problem, John, is that with cakes as with pudding, the proof 
 VH> is in the eating.  Failure to employ an objective standard leads to 
 VH> failure to learn from the past.

Now, where did I say we should have no standard?  Did you actually read what I
said and think about it?  It sure doesn't sound like it, because you keep
asking questions about things I never said.

John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
Go to www.madgorilla.us for all your Domain Name Services at the lowest rates.

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin:  (1:379/1.99)