pop morality

[Drich]

Except that the claims the Nazis used to justify their holocaust were, you know, factually incorrect? If you build a moral outlook based upon false foundations, the moral system that results will not supply morally correct conclusions because the means of deriving those conclusions would be wrong. Are you so completely spaced out and separated from reality that you don't even consider whether the things people do align with the facts anymore?

But that's the thing isn't it? "Nazi" facts were not too far off center at the time. what they did was take what was known about 'evolution' and through their propaganda machine put a slight slant/positive spin on one race/sub species over the others, then they identified their followers as being apart of the ultimate evolutionary purity that 'natural selection' was taking too long to vet out ...

ever wonder why if a particular species of a given genus shows any variances it is reclassified with a different species name or placed in a sub species category? All except Humanity? Well, in the 1930's was indeed subdivided. This division is what the Nazi's used to justify their claims of racial superiority/ablity for higher reasoning and cognitive abilities. They were not just pulling random facts out of the air. they were using real science, that at the time the world recognized. what's more they (the citizens of Nazi germany) like any of us do not generally have access to facts beyond what a given discipline wants circulated. I point back to the 'fact' that we are no longer subdivided into different or sub species categories. Our knowledge of the 'truth' is capped by the same society that provides us with 'morality.'

(the question)
So how then do we know in this soceity who like Nazi German has separated the state from God, have not made an 'evil' left turn like the nazi's did?

Constant reverification of the moral underpinnings of that society via evidence and logic. Democracies are actually pretty good (not perfect, but pretty good) at that.

Democracies like the republic of Iran? or the People's Republic of China?
Or do you mean just white western republics?

I would say a 'republic' simply repersents what the majority of the people want... So if the Majority of people want to be evil, then the country will be evil. (The republic of Iran, or Syrian Arab republic) then what that culture's first task would be is to take control of it's citizens morality and warp it to fit the new direction the country wants to go.

My question remains. If you were in the mist of a given society's hard turn to evil, do you have the tools to spot the turn and do you have the where with all to stand against it?

I think I see the problem though, which is sort of the problem with every argument you make, Drich: your conception of the issue you're discussing is so simplistic that a child could have it. You're sitting here acting like any change to a moral system is evidence that the system is arbitrary and ineffective, and that stolidly never changing is the sign of objectivity, and that's ridiculous. "You know what I want, out of a moral system? A refusal to ever change in the face of new evidence."

Was it Einstein who said, "if you can not explain a precept so simply a child could grasp it, then you yourself do not truly understand the principle."
Just because the principle is explained very simply does not mean we/I can wade deeper into the pool.. The problem is my 'swim buddy' in this instance you (as witnessed by your opening paragraph) doesn't fully grasp/can't make all of the connective parallels between our popular culture and the pop culture of the Nazis, that would allow us to go any deeper. I feel it because You are either too lazy to look into it or simply place too much blind faith that you/this culture is somehow immune to the mistakes of our forefathers. That's why you are throwing out weak arguments concerning the nature of their evidence or their failure to be a republic.. As if either of those things would safe guard us from following down that path.
Not to mention as simple as my argument is, you don't seem to be able come up with any sort of safe guard that would ensure that you yourself would not be goose stepping your way into some great 'societal cause' if your 'republic' used 'science' to demanded it.

Morality is a learning process because we as humans are always learning.
We don't know everything, and as the pool of information we have available to make our ethical determinations grows, the determinations themselves must change with that. Why would that be a bad thing to you? If we discover that the underpinnings of something we'd taken as morally bad are factually wrong, why should we continue to pretend as though it's still bad, when the basis of that turned out to be untrue?

then please I'd love to hear your take on my hypothetical concerning pedophiles: http://atheistforums.org/post-1187436.html#pid1187436
post number 25