Then why is slavery in a world of white supremacists any different?
Hitler, like the other genocidal tyrants of the 20th century was abhorrent by the standards of the time. Maybe that’s my US-centrism with regards to cultural norms speaking though.
That would be a valid argument if those saying the former would demonstrate the latter. But by and large the opposition just said “stop saying that” without even coming up with a replacement, let alone affirming they agreed with the underlying concept of having the police no longer handle situations they aren’t trained for, instead using some of their funding to help out social workers and such. Or, in some cases, disestablishing the current police force and replacing it with a new one to root out the corruption.
We have every reason to believe those people saying to remove statues or names on buildings are okay with the history still being taught. We don’t have good reason to assume those saying “defund the police” is bad don’t mean that the entire underlying concept is bad.
Agreed. So if times became much worse and Hitler’s behavior was the new standard, would you consider it morally correct? Or would it be wrong even then?
Where’s here?
I don’t think we should idolize people, but I do think we should honor them if they’ve done something to deserve it. Their ideas and views aren’t important - only their actions count. I believe that Lincoln’s actions on race are worthy of honoring.
Here is Raleigh NC area
I think SF will rename some schools not including any presidents.
I agree with the last part, and sort of with the first part. Certainly I can imagine a person with momentous actions but such a troubled viewpoint that they aren’t worthy of honoring with place-name designations. I’m not thinking of any of the top of my head right now… maybe Lindbergh or Henry Ford. Of course we have a lot of places and things named after Lindbergh in my neck of the woods.
And this is exactly the type of discussion the school board will have. The committee named every school that has any possibility of needing renaming and the board will discuss the actions and import of the people honored compared to their objectionable actions or beliefs and make a determination about what’s right for their community. If the community disagrees they will vote out the school board. Hooray for democracy!
Besides having to deal with the moral failings of our traditional heroes, I think a better reason for renaming is that those names have simply been over used. Are we, as a society, so unimaginative or enamored of a dead man that we need to name 607 schools after Abraham Lincoln? (Yeah, I googled that). There are enough unique place names, geographical features, and obscure local heroes and educators to give every school in the country a unique name.
I’m not necessarily saying we shouldn’t name a school after past presidents. I think it is appropriate to weigh both the good and the bad things that they did and come to a decision. That’s a discussion that can be had, by the people in the school district.
My problem is with those who want to paint anyone who wants to have that conversation as trying to erase history or as anti-American.
And it’s not just presidents. Another person we have greatly honored but who somewhat troubles me is Wernher von Braun, mostly for the allegations of brutality that some of the prisoners from the Nazi factory he ran had about him in particular.
I agree, but we shouldn’t overcompensate in the other direction. Some people are worthy of respect and admiration despite their flaws.
History should be taught for accuracy and truth. One - sided views are not history but propaganda.
How about this:
Places where it is Appropriate to invoke the Founding Fathers
- Monuments in our capital city
- Government buildings
- Names of warships
Places where it is Inappropriate to invoke the Founding Fathers
- Things that specifically involve one of their failings, like a scholarship to support black students in particular (just as a program to honor Jewish physicists probably shouldn’t be named after von Braun, even if a building at NASA HQ is)
Places where it is Debatedly Appropriate to invoke the Founding Fathers (and where the people living in the area should be allowed to decide for themselves without being declared anti-American
- A majority black school
- A residential street in a majority black community
after this is done they can worry about why there are no lefthanded Mongolian lesbians in congress.
Maybe we can worry about why you (and so many others) are so upset that 12 people made a list of names to bring up for further debate. This thread is probably longer than their discussion was. I’d also be interested in why the newspaper you quoted felt this was an important topic to fearmonger about.
With my understanding of the world it’s wrong. My moral reasoning is based upon age of enlightenment ideals. But what I think is partly genetic and partly cultural. If I grew up in a vastly different culture I would probably think differently.
I think you are asking if there are absolute moral truths and I don’t think that those exist. I think there are differing sets of moral axioms that societies or as societies fragment, factions, adopt or internalize and then apply various strengths of reason and logic to derive sets of moral behaviors.
Then why is your embracing of enlightenment ideals any more “right” than a fanatic Islamist implementing Sharia law? If there is no objective morality, why choose enlightenment ideals to follow? Pulled out of a hat? Or do you just follow those ideals because you were raised to (in which case your moral standing is identical to the Jihadist because he was raised to believe in a fundamentalist Muslim ideals)?
Exactly. I can’t say mine are objectively better. I was raised to believe that they are but I can’t prove it. That’s why it’s axiomatic. It’s also why certain sets of cultural traits are irreconcilable.
Fair enough, then that makes you a moral relativist, in which case I think we have an unreconcileable difference of opinion that no amount of debate will resolve. That’s a philosophical position that I won’t find common ground with.
Eta: that’s not to say I or anyone else know what the “correct” moral framework is. But if we say there isn’t one, there’s not much point in debate - the Nazis are right, the Islamists are right, the SJWs are right, the Democrats are right, the Republicans are right. Anyone who genuinely believes that they are doing the right thing - for example, Hitler - is morally right.