So do we need to take philosophical and moral qualms "situationally" or can we draw black and white rules to guide us?
I ask because a friend of mine was arguing that Germany was right to ban "Mein Kampf" for a long time until they had rebuilt.
I argued that it was an act of censorship and is wrong in any case.
What do you guys think? Not about who won, who was right or wrong, but do we need to take situations on a case-by-case basis or can we try and establish a guideline?
Basically: Kantian ethics vs Moral Relativity.
Where do you stand?
Try to explain progress like abolishing slavery while u remain a moral relativist.
>>7730461
But abolishing slavery was done out of rational impulses. Slavery was inefficient. Northern workers were ten times as productive. Whatever gains were made by not paying the workers, were lost as the industry became less efficient due to the glut of labor, whereas northerners were forced to invent labor saving devices.
It's the age old question of why Rome never industrialized, and in slavery you have your answer.
>>7730484
I think everyone can see reasons for the abolishing, but in a relativist point u can claim it as progress, or e ven think were a more advanced in morals society now, since that would mean morals,, need a non relative standar to appeal, or according to Kant a moral standar we ought to have.
From a relativist point, morals dont have a reason to be, since ar just a missproduct and also moral progress is not possible.
Axiomatic morality needs a standar to be set,in a moralistist point of view theres not such thing as an standar.
Read deontological morals.
>>7730461
The fault here lies in the fact that you label it progress as default, the moral relativist might not see it that way.
>>7730461
>progress
>implying
>mein kampf was bad or wrong
You cannot defend this belief.
