Comments on: Relativism, Power, and the Need for a Standard – Part One

By: Relativism, Power, and the Need for a Standard - Part Two | The A-Team Blog

Relativism, Power, and the Need for a Standard - Part Two | The A-Team Blog — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 02:41:18 +0000

[…] the same phone call I described in Part One, the talk show host challenged the caller who said she supported the Palestinians because they have […]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:38:31 +0000

Speaking of the “lessons” of Vietnam, I wonder why the anti-war protestors still insist that they were right about that war when the reasons to fight that war now seem to be largely valid. If the protestors were so concerned for the plight of the Vietnamese fighting against the “imperialist” US, then why do they remain unapologetic now even after the US pullout allowed the Communists to oppress and murder the very Vietnamese they supposedly cared about? And why, after the Communists took power, did the Vietnamese seek refuge in the US (their supposed imperialist oppressors)? It seems the US was right to fight that war and the protestors were wrong. -Johnny

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 05:55:17 +0000

“Only when power is balanced can we have peace.”
Charlie, thanks for your thoughts. You're right that this is a common view, and again, it doesn't take into account questions of morality. For example, would it be a good thing for Iran to have the same amount of power as the United States? Is the most important thing to have balanced power or to prevent those from gaining power who would use their power to wipe out entire countries (as Iran recently said it would like to do to Israel)? It seems obvious that we ought to want the countries that respect human rights to have the power.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:41:55 +0000

I'm not sure about the connection between materialism and power, but I'd like to hear you talk more about that.
One of the fundamental moral principles of the left is that war is immoral, and peace is an intrinsic good. (I think this view is due to the “lessons” of Viet Nam, and the large number of anti-war protesters from that era who are now in leadership in the Democratic party.)
In this line of reasoning, power leads to aggression and violence. Only when power is balanced can we have peace (if you pre-suppose that humans are intrinsically good at heart, as many on the left do).
So it seems to me that the left sees every use of power as a threat to the peace and safety of humanity. There is a strong utopianism on the left that believes that we can achieve world peace by restraining the powerful, or taking away the weapons they might use to cause us harm. Utopianism is a materialist idea, certainly.
I want to hear more. Looking forward to your next post, Amy.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:26:18 +0000

Oh, very funny.
But seriously, I don't want this post to become left versus right (a huge topic I'm definitely not going to take on here!), but just relativism/power-based justice versus right/wrong-based justice.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:40:45 +0000

“The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.”

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:08:32 +0000

Thanks, Micah–and I think this is an important clarification you've made here, as usual!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:49:04 +0000

Ahh, all is right with the world again. Well, not really, but it's better now that Amy's pen, so to speak, is active here again.
No one will be surprised that I think this is right on. While it is true that being “liberal” does not necessarily equate being relativistic, it is also true that most proponents of relativism fall on the liberal/left side of the political divide (there are some notable exceptions on the right, Rehnquist was one). All the more reason to be grateful for those on the lefty side who do make principled arguments.