Chris writes:
> The Nazis were demonstrably wrong about things other
than just their moral worldview (I happen to agree with Miles
here, vaguely and approximately, and am really turned
off by the Rortyesque "the Western liberal as moral
yardstick" line).*
The problem is that no one on the list (which for the moment I am going to treat as an approximate microcosm of the left), wants to define what standards should be used to measure the morality of actions. There is a vague consensus that pure relativism is not good, but discussion rarely gets beyond this nebulous stage.
Setting standards and making judgements is something human beings do. The right has done it for centuries and done a pretty bad job of it. The left has shied away, but in doing so has left itself open to charges of relativism.
When I challenge the emphasis on theory in leftist thinking, it is because while theory is all well and good, what is desperately needed (in my opinion) are pragmatic rules of enagement that the left can use in its struggle with the right and which can also be communicated to non-leftists so that they may understand the left better.
The fact is that individuals, societies, communities, and cultures meet, mix, intermingle, clash and a great deal more. If the left is committed to the establishment and maintenance of a fair and just society, then that commitment implies that the left is willing to delineate a moral framework which will accomplish this goal: we need a measuring stick a) to see if we have actually accomplished anything and b) to evaluate the tools with which we go about the task of building this fair/just society to determine if they are in keeping with our goals (of course, some may argue that the tools do not have to meet the same standards as the goals).
> The Nazis believed in a racially defined humanity in which
angelic Aryans were besieged by satanic Untermenschen. That's
wrong just as a statement of fact. It was a paranoid fantasy that
became translated into politics. They were wrong in a much different
sense than, say, people who believe that slavery is justifiable
(which is most people in the "civilized" world before around 1800).
But in each case the problem is that judgement of right/wrong is based on intentions/premises. What happens when intentions or underlying theory are not know? I think this approach is to look through the wrong end of the telescope. Take for example my disagreement with Nathan. I think he has good intentions, but the consequnces of his actions are sexphobic/honmophobic and indistinguishable from the consequences of actions committed by people with homophobic intentions.
Theory is useful in explaining how/why Nathan thinks/acts the way he does, but it offers no mechanism for evaluating the consequences of Nathan's real actions in the real world.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister