|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Mandela paradox
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
And ask only that there be some consistency in our condemnations.
A “consistency in our condemnations” is a necessary and worthwhile exercise, but must co-exist with some sort of sense of proportion.
Sorry to use WWII as an illustration again, but it is just too damn convenient!
It is right to condemn the area bombing of German civilians (while simultaneously recognizing the courage of the young men of Bomber Command, and the fact that they almost certainly believed they were doing their bit to destroy Nazism), but not to conclude that Britain and the rest of the West were therefore morally equivalent to Nazism.
The moral equivalence fallacy was far more prevalent during the Cold War, because it was more ideologically congenial to condemn anti-communists than it was to condemn anti-Nazis, but C.S. Lewis, in his essay Dangers Of National Repentance, dissects and exposes an existing attitude on the part of certain young people that, “Who are we to criticize the wickedness of Nazi Germany when we British are so wicked ourselves?”
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
The moral equivalence fallacy was far more prevalent during the Cold War, because it was more ideologically congenial to condemn anti-communists than it was to condemn anti-Nazis, but C.S. Lewis, in his essay Dangers Of National Repentance, dissects and exposes an existing attitude on the part of certain young people that, “Who are we to criticize the wickedness of Nazi Germany when we British are so wicked ourselves?”
Yeah, I'm pretty cautious about moral equivalencies myself. I find they often tend to be used by people who are simply apologists for a regime. As opposed to people who are sincerely trying to find the plank in their own eye.
In this thread, I've tried to avoid juxtaposing actual opponents in conflicts, eg. I haven't said that shooting deserters made the Union no better than the Confederacy. I'm assuming that both the Union(at least after Emancipation) and anti-apartheid were just struggles, and comparing their respective tactics, within the context of a level ethical playing field.
Though I will say that, in retrospect, the Rosenbergs probably did humanity a favour, though not for the reasons that they might have thought. I prefer Harry Truman to Joseph Stalin, but I also think it would have been a pretty bad thing for any one country to have the monopoly on nuclear weapons. Not that Russia(and the British, and the Chinese etc) wouldn't have gotten nukes eventually.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
DouglasTheOtter
Ship's aquatic mammal
# 17681
|
Posted
We didn't herd people into gas chambers, but blew them up.
Go, us.
--------------------
Need writing or copywriting? Visit me at...
www.rjpmedia.net
Posts: 171 | From: Twickenham | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
We didn't herd people into gas chambers, but blew them up.
Go, us.
I get what you're saying. But do you think that there would have been no difference for overall human well-being had the Axis won World War II?
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
DouglasTheOtter
Ship's aquatic mammal
# 17681
|
Posted
It'd clearly have been disastrous for some people and much better for others, which isn't really in doubt. There's an assumption, though, that we shouldn't examine the behaviour of the Allies because they were fighting on the 'right' side, which overlooks a number of things - chief among them the fact that the Soviet Union were headed by the most prolific mass-murderer in history.
--------------------
Need writing or copywriting? Visit me at...
www.rjpmedia.net
Posts: 171 | From: Twickenham | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Well KC, the Roman economy was a slave economy for a thousand years before becoming Christian and didn't skip a beat locally for over another thousand. The - our - Roman=Christian (aka Great Babylonian) slave economy accelerated in its - our - colonies for another three centuries.
Islam - a polarization reaction in kind to Babylonian-Roman Christianity - was a late, second division slaver by comparison with Christianity.
You don't question the fact of the Christian ruin of Africa I'm glad to see. Why not, surely?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
