Quote:
Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow
Very sensitive post and I agree to most of it.
On one thing I would like to comment though. You rightly say that by pointing out British atrocities with the purpose to relativise German atrocities is wrong. I strongly support this.
But just a few lines later you start to compare British atrocities to German ones suggesting that whatever the Brits came up with is on a lower scale than what the Germans did. I do not make a statement about the content itself but you do exactly the same that you blame others to do: relativise by comparison. Relativism goes both ways and should be refuted both ways.
An injustice remains an injustice and hence uncomparable. They stand there and should be all regarded and considered independently without going into: country X or country y has done worse. Because this is what relativism is about. The same holds for instance for all the comparison between Nazi Germany's crimes and Soviet crimes. Both are there. Both are outrageously horrible. The existance of one does not make the other one smaller.
Just because Jack the Ripper killed five people does not make killing one man "only" a lesser crime.
So even if country x had no extermination scheme or killed only 10% of those killed by country y does not make it having less darker spots in history.
|
Hallo Crow. You are absolutely correct, and I couldn't agree more.
I was unable to finish my post and had in fact begun a final paragraph beginning 'however' in concurrence with what you have just posted (had to dash for a bus and so aborted it). It is indeed also relative, (relativism itself however being multifaceted and taking many forms in its philosophical context too).
There are those who maintain that there are universal 'moral' truths, going back to the age of Socrates and Plato. Few people here would argue for example, that the theft of an apple has any moral equivalence to the premeditated murder of an individual. Thus, most modern legal-punitive systems will have a curious blend of both moral absolutism ('murder is unquestionably wrong in any circumstance') as well as relativism ('murder is not as serious a crime as theft') with both being penalised accordingly.
The comparison made was not any attempt to validate or in any way mitigate a wrong ( 'The existence of one does not make the other one smaller.') I agree absolutely. The intent was to show how these observations are perceptual and indeed relative, and dependent on many variables. Others however would argue that they
are comparable in terms of immorality. The concept of 'Morality' is a very murky area, and worthy of its own thread. I understand how this was not clear from my post, as it was unfinished and did not represent my views in their entirety. Really, I should not have posted it in that form.
So, no real disagreement here Crow.......'Two wrongs' most certainly do not make a right, and neither can diminish nor mitigate the other. Agreed (had a few lagers so sorry for any spelling mistakes if there is). Bottom line, we are all the same......end of story. What happened in Germany could conceivably happen anywhere, given a similar or identical set of conditions.
Interesting stuff, but we should probably get back to the BoB. LOL @Feathered's comment, yes a 'Troll nade' was successfully detonated.
Evidence being Avro has not made a single contribution to the thread, he's just watching the small arms fire and artillery strikes, whistling away innocently from a nearby hill.
Avro successfully started a ROF vs COD war at the Zoo, too. A master of his art.
Cheers.