Comments on: The "Hitler Charm"

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:46:51 +0000

it seems to me that the limit of the benefit of reffering to scripture is the limit of your audience's acceptance of it as a source. I don't suggest that we avoid talking about scripture. Until someone puts their faith in that scripture as a reliable source, though, this method is limited by their lack of trust in it.
If you are saying that quoting scriptures (quoting God) won't always win the argument, you are right. People have been ignoring God from the beginning. And if your final ultimate goal is to win the argument than use whatever method you want. But if your ultimate goal is to speak the truth and maybe expose whomever you are speaking with to God's word, than losing a debate/discussion/argument should play second fiddle.
God's word lingers in the hearts of men and you never know what nugget of truth God might use later down the road to aid in thier salvation. I've walked away from many discussions knowing I didn't convince the person of my point of view, and I'm sure you have to. But does the person walk away thinking “that guy doesn't know what he's talking about” or does he walk away thinking “that guy has a solid based (scripture based) opinion even though I dissagree with it”
And I know there are all kinds of negative conotations that go along with “Christian Ethics/Morals” Many times the person will probably be more offended by the same opinion, just because he/she now knows it's a Christian point of view. That doesn't matter. The effectiveness of God's word isn't in my presentation of it, but in God's power to use it. Yes, I have lost and continue to lose moral discussions. That doesn't mean my message doesn't have a positive affect on the person I share it with.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:59:43 +0000

Briefly, Brian, it seems to me that the limit of the benefit of reffering to scripture is the limit of your audience's acceptance of it as a source. I don't suggest that we avoid talking about scripture. Until someone puts their faith in that scripture as a reliable source, though, this method is limited by their lack of trust in it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:02:49 +0000

Face, sorry for misconstruing your meaning.
Bill, I am currently in a religious discussion with a Muslim who very assertively declares to me the truth of the Koran and the scattered truth of the Bible. I'm not offended (though some of the things he says about Jesus and the Bible are clearly blasphemous and offensive) for I know this is how he truly feels. I think I would be more offended if he didn't share with me his belief as he believes it. I don't expect everyone I share my beliefs with to agree with me, but I can't for even a moment give up my position that the Bible is the infallible word of God. I don't hide my Christianity and so if you are having a moral discussion with me it's no surprise that I bring up Biblical proofs.
But if I shift my focus to just finding common moral ground, where does that leave me? We live in a world where common moral ground is becoming few and far between. And if/when we find this common moral ground, shouldn't the next question be, “where do you get your moral objection from?” I have yet to have a serious debate about morals/ethics without coming to that question. Hitler's actions were atrocious…. Really, why? well, he killed millions of innocent people… but why is that wrong?
See the bottom line question is always “Why is this morally right or wrong?” It doesn't matter if we are discussing Hitler or Marriage or anything else under the sun. We are quickly approaching a point where the only common values we share is that “Hitler was a bad man”. Face, your example dealling with kids needing a Mother and a Father demonstrates that. And as you stated, If you were to make a moral argument, someone might respond, “That's nice, and it's true for you, but it might not be true for everybody,” and then continue merrily on his way. Can't that argument be extended to Hitler, obviously he thought he was morally right.
There is no moral argument without Scripture. If we try to make a moral argument without Scripture, using our 'common morals' we are arguing a foolish argument, for we have taken God out of the equation. And yes, there are those who will be offended by ascerting Biblical doctrine, but we were never commanded not to offend. We were commanded to declare the Gospel to the world, boldy. I don't think tiptoeing on eggshells trying not to offend people is what Jesus had in mind. I'm sure I've offended my friends at times, but what is more convicting than the word of God? And this doesn't mean that I try to cram it down their throats, but I'm never afraid to broach the subject of God in a moral discussion.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 03:08:36 +0000

Ah yes, all religions are equal. This is different from what I was talking about. While you will find few if any who believe that all positions are equally valid, you will find that the majority of people believe that religion cannot be established objectively and therefor shold not make definitive claims of truth on those who do not choose to accept that faith.
Yes, that is something of a Western value. More specifically, I believe the value is something along these lines. All religions with large numbers of followers should be treated with equal respect as though they are equally valid – for those who choose to believe that they are though none could be so established. Those with less of a following are more open to criticism, rejection and maybe ridicule. This is something of a pluralistic politeness.
When you assert your values based on your religion, you are breaking this folkway, which we root in our value of the freedom to practice religion. If you assert that your religion is true over and against mine, you are infringing on my freedom to choose and practice my religion. Similarly if you assert a value that you derive solely from your religion, we as a society see this as bad form and rude. It is fine for you to share with us your religious tradition, but to assert that it should be accepted by others is viewed as unreasonable and disrespectful.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:20:21 +0000

“As I have asserted before, you will find virtually no one who is willing to agree with you that no position is better than any other.”
I think you're mistaken about this. In terms of cultures and religions, I have heard many debates where people argue that no religion or culture is objectively better than another. People within the societies decide on a subjective hierarchy of values and consider one value “better” than another, but this is subjective only, and not objective. There can be no judging between societies. In debates, I've heard people refuse to say that the society Canada has created is better than the society that Iran has created. I've heard them say that human sacrifices were made in past cultures, but that was okay for them even if it's not okay for us. In other words, we need to live by the rules we make up in our own societies (for practical reasons), but those rules aren't really “true” for all societies.
Now, do people really believe this deep down? I don't think so. I think we all have moral intuition that informs us that there really is such a thing as objective right and wrong. So in that sense, I think what you're saying is true–people know some ideas are better than others. However, there is a certain pressure not to make claims of “better” or “worse” when it comes to religions, cultures, and other moral claims. If you don't believe me, try proclaiming that it's better for children to have a mother and a father rather than two mothers or one father. You will immediately be chastised for being judging and intolerant and your claim will be characterized as cultural conditioning. In other words, your view will be dismissed on the basis of the nature of the claim (that one thing is objectively better than another) rather than on the merits of the truth of the claim.
Now granted, I probably run into this much more often in L.A. than you do in Texas, but believe me, it's out there.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 15 Aug 2005 04:38:43 +0000

Amy, I agree that there are few if any moral facts that are as commonly accepted as “Hitler is Evil.” It is worth noting that I would not be trying to assert that my position is true, merely that it is better than another and worthy of their acceptance.
I agree that convincing someone of an absolute with which you could found your argument would give you a great deal of weight. Some of our folkways and mores are also very weighty, though. If we show that an action violates a principle and value that they hold dear, they will be pursuaded that the action is bad.
“Can you give an example of how this would be possible? If no position is better than any other (the claim of relativism), how would you convince people that your position is better than theirs?”
As I have asserted before, you will find virtually no one who is willing to agree with you that no position is better than any other. I encourage those who lean on this description of society to evaluate it more carefully, as it is a caricature. I find it to be the present conservative formulation of what is evil about our world rather than an accurate description of our culture.
What would be a primitive example that might be simple to construct? Lets start with the values that I suggested before. We hold a common value that people have certain freedoms and that those freedoms are bound so that they do not infringe on other's freedoms. We believe that each person has the right to own property. We also believe that people should be free to persue wealth and provide for their families. We limit this pursuit of wealth though in various fashions. I may not infringe on your right to own property by taking what is yours against your will – particularly without compensating you for it. If someone did so, barring other more complicated circumstances for the case of this example, we would find his actions immoral. If someone argued that it was okay to steal, we could persuade them that this was unethical because it violated a more deeply held shared belief that we have a right to own property.
I admit this example is poor but I was trying to pull together something short. If this doesn't suffice, I can try to construct something larger. I was thinking the other day of such a construction that showed why we feel the Republican lobbyist who abused his Indian gaming customers was immoral. We do not have to reference scripture or another such definitive absolute to persuade an audience of the immorality of his acts because his acts violate principles and values that we as a society share. If we show which of these shared values he has violated, people will be persuaded that his actions are immoral.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 14 Aug 2005 23:58:01 +0000

Bill, thanks for taking the time to comment on this.
Without a reference such as scripture, it may be impossible to prove that my position is the absolute correct position. It is not impossible to persuade others that it is a better position than others.
Can you give an example of how this would be possible? If no position is better than any other (the claim of relativism), how would you convince people that your position is better than theirs? The only way this is possible is if you establish a principle–a benchmark–that you both agree is morally true. The benchmark wouldn't have to be Scripture–it could be an idea or principle (as you noted). But without appealing to a single commonly held principle about what is objectively bad and what is good, there is no reason for anyone to take on your position.
On the other hand, we do have values that are collectively recognized (at least by a large portion of our society) and on these we can make moral arguments.
People may hold common values (and I think you're right that our society has many common values), but you'll find that people are unwilling to claim that they hold these values because they are true. Because of relativism, people are taught that our cultural conditioning has determined our values for us. Values are not true or false in any objective sense. Instead, they're considered to be preferences. If you were to make a moral argument, someone might respond, “That's nice, and it's true for you, but it might not be true for everybody,” and then continue merrily on his way. However, if, in your argument, you bring in a moral fact accepted as objectively true, the argument suddenly has more weight, and the listener has to evaluate and come to terms with your claims instead of dismissing them.
There aren't many moral ideas that are accepted as objective facts in this culture, and I can't think of a moral fact more commonly accepted as true than “Hitler was evil.” It does seem possible, then, that people are using Hitler to give their moral claims the weight of fact.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 14 Aug 2005 23:24:15 +0000

Tyler, as I mentioned in my comment to Mune, I agree that the commonality of Hitler plays a part. Any benchmark used in moral arguments must–in order to become popularly used–be generally accepted (as a moral fact) and it must be common (known by all in a pluralistic society). Hitler fits both of these things.
But there are many other people in history that we're all aware of–even in this pluralistic society. Because of this, I think relativism is more central to explaining why we use Hitler. When you think about it, it's hard to think of any other moral example that everyone would agree was truly good or truly evil. I think this is a direct result of relativism. No matter how much people might excuse other people who have done evil (e.g., “one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter,” “the communists really had good intentions–it just didn't work out,” etc.) no one ever tries to “see things from Hitler's perspective” or argue that “the people who are now in power have, for their own nefarious reasons, distorted what Hitler did so we would hate him,” or say that Hitler's views were “true for him.” Nobody would say that Hitler's actions look wrong to us only because of our cultural conditioning. (Well, I can't say “nobody” because I have heard a couple of professors say this, but in general this is true.) I can't think of anyone else who falls into this category. (On the side of good, Mother Teresa is often used as an example, but I can't think of anyone else on the side of evil.)
So while the “commonality” requirement (resulting from a pluralistic society) rules out a lot of people, the “acceptance” requirement (resulting from a relativistic society) seems to rule out everybody but Hitler.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 14 Aug 2005 23:07:42 +0000

Yes, thanks, Victor. Sean, I'm not trying to convince Christians we ought to use Hitler as our standard; instead, I'm trying to understand why the people of our society often use him as an illustration. As a Christian, I would never concede the view that the Bible is just the opinions of men.
I agree that our main task as Christians is preaching the Gospel. But in a democratic society, we also have a responsibility to affect this society for the good. I think that involves making moral arguments for certain positions. As Tyler pointed out, this requires our starting from a position upon which we all agree.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 14 Aug 2005 03:12:03 +0000

Thanks for articulating this Tyler. I read this post thinking, I wouldn't have gone this direction, but I hadn