What is the U.K. thinking?

Remove all ads!

I would just like to say that what is considered wrong and good changes with the years. Today we think that slavery and racism is wrong, and rightly so. It was wrong back in the days as well but then it wasnt perceived as wrong. People are creations of their society to a very big extent. Many things in our society today would be seen as wrong and wicked by standards of old, sexual liberty and extreme secularism comes to mind. So I think that it may not be wrong to condemn people of old to hold slave or be racist you have to keep in mind that society saw nothing wrong with that at the time and no one had been raised with the ideals that all men are equal and the like. Many if not all goverment saw nothing wrong with Hitler's policy towards jews and other minorities within Germany, it was first when he started to attack other nations that the world reacted and it wasnt because they thought the nazi's were so terrible, it was simple because no one wanted a single state to become all powerful on the european continent or in the case of Russia that they were outrightly attacked. France got the boot mostly to keep Germany's eastern flank clear and of course the humiliating Versaille treaty whom France had been the driving force behind. All this points towards that peoples values change and we cant really judge people by the standards of today, what we can do is to lift up those few that really fought against those standards and stood up against racism and slavery even when it was the acceptable and right thing to do.

 

Ah, relativism rears its head. See, this is why the debate is fun. I don't think ethics are relative. I think it was just as wrong to own slaves hundreds of years ago as it is today. The argument, "but everyone is doing it!" doesn't hold water in my opinion.

Whether you're utilitarian, or some type of deontologist, any way that you justify slavery as being immoral today holds true of yesterday in all likelihood(added that little caveat.)

It is possible for a lot of people of yesterday to have been doing something immoral. It is possible that the world is becoming a better place, I think it is.

 

Personally, I prefer to distance myself from too much political nonsense.

Im just a firm believer of taking care of that which actually affects me and what I hold dear, not what someone else I dont know wants to do.

In essense, we are all wrong about everythng, as there are too many sides to everything to be 100% accurate about a single life issue, and I couldn't care less about who invents what, someone would do it eventually.

Call me bitter, or non-patriotic, but thats just the way I am, and nothing will tell me otherwise.

Sure, Lady Di was kind to other countries....but a few people would say "Why doesn't she help our people first?" It purely depends on one's political views.

Im just gonna shut up now, im feeling a little up-tight right now.

 

USA cannot be blamed for the war in Europe.The reasons for this war came from the terms of Versaille treaty and UK and France were the ones, who insisted in these terms.

In addition, UK and France could win the war in 1939, if they had launched an attack,when the majority and the elite of the German army were in Poland and in the german western borders were few divisions of low quality. They didn't do it because they believed that Hitler's next target would be USSR.

Unofficialy USA joined the war before Pearl Harbor. Without the american supplies during 1940-1941, which were sent with american cargo ships as well, UK had no chance.

He gave them hope, that's true but he didn't give victory. If you are speaking just about the Battle of Britain, victory was given by Hitler's and Goering's stupidity. Just see the "halt order" in Dunkirk and the order to start bombing cities and stop bombing factories and airbases. If you are speaking about the whole war, just see the size of the Red Army and the industry of USA.

 

Ahhh Laches, you hold an extremely dangerous viewpoint. To believe that there are, floating somewhere in the nether regions of the universe, moral absolutes of right and wrong inevitably leads to strife. The problem with the idea of moral absolutes is that EVERYONE thinks that they know what they are, and this gives any group of like-minded people the justification to push whatever twisted ideal they have on everyone else.

On the other hand, extreme moral relativism, the idea that we should accept everyone else's beliefs no matter what they are, causes us to stand idle while innocents are killed and atrocites are committed.

Therefore, in the case of absolute ethics vs. moral relativism, it is best to walk a fine line between the two. Balance in all things.

 

Apothetai, can you please explain what IS a betwixt-and-between? Seems to me it's either relative or absolute.

Incidentally, I still haven't heard anyone explain how the US could possibly be blamed for WWII.

 

Something funny: "Unknown Soldier" is ahead of Queen Victoria.

 

Oh, no! Strife! We must avoid strife!

 

Operation Barbarrosa(Invasion of Russia) anyone, I´m pretty sure that was the stupidest action of the Axis.. since that doubled the German front with the largest enemy (quantity over quality, ey)

Hell no, Hitler would rally his troops and send it in direction of the French/German border as soon as he found out the Allies were mobilizing their troops... and with the German superiority over the allies.. It would only ensure the victory of the Third Reich.. Since after that who wanted to mess with Mr. Moustache?? Only Stalin could make a change, but he just annihilated his best generals.

 

Who said anything about moral absolutes floating around somewhere? I certainly didn't.

I assume you are making a common criticism of deontological philosophies. People like to criticize Plato for these "floating absolutes." I think Kant showed though there is no reason why a system of moral laws needs to be some disembodies mythical set of rules.

What is sometimes called rule utilitarianism is another set of rules which defies the "floating rule" criticism.

Also, don't confuse metaphysics with epistemology, you might be on that path.

Really though, if you want to discuss it further I'd say we need a specific example. Slavery is already being used. I'd ask why slavery is wrong today or if it isn't wrong today why it is not.

FWIW there are very few relativists left in the world of professional philosophy today, at least the upper echelons. The only rarer breed may be ethical egotist. I think most have abandoned the theory of relativism because it is so anti-intuitive.

 

Morgoth

Western allies had deployed in german borders 90 French divisions and 2000 tanks plus the 200000 men of the British force. On the other hand, Germans had 43 infantry divisions.According to general Vormann only 11 of these divisions could be considered worthfighting. Also, he stated that Army Group C did not have a single tank, a single mechanized formation. So, if allied had launched an attack, the german forces had no chance as General Kaitel has admited later. Allies would be in the heart of Germany, when the reinforcements from Polamd would arrive.

As for the German superiority over allies, in 1939-1940 this existed only in terms of tactics and trainning. As far as equipment is concerned, french and british equipment was much better than the german one. The only german tank, which could face british and french tanks was Panzer IV and Germans had little number of those in their arsenal. In addition, the only german gun, which could penetrate the frontal armor of the heaviest allied tanks like the french BIS, was the '88 A/A gun.

Finally, if British and french had launched an attack, do you believe that Stalin would respect the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement?