What Human Rights?

[Mudhammam]

---

I find your view on morality changing or evolving very intriguing. If that is true then on what basis can we condemn any acts both existentially and historically.  Do you believe morals are relative?

This is a great question. I'll answer at the risk of hijacking the initial intent of direction the OP wanted to take. I do think it is indirectly germane though because in the big picture it seems that morality along with ethics have evolved in pace with human rights. (This is my view anyways.) I believe morality is the product of the evolutionary development of man and society. Within the framework of our society, we chose our own, personal code of moral conduct. 

I also know that the question of judging or condemning acts based on a fluid morality might seem to push one with this belief into a corner of not being able to judge. It creates enigmas and conundrums that one must be willing to accept. 

Most people consider slavery one of the great evils of humanity. Were Thomas Jefferson and George Washington evil? They both sold and maintained hundreds of slaves on their estates throughout their lifetimes, while simultaneously proclaiming the equality of all men. Were they evil hypocrites? If we oppose the evil of slavery, why do we build marble monuments to men who enslaved other men for their personal gain? 

Many think Epicurus was one of the great, enlightened philosophers of Ancient Greece. However, Epicurus owned and operated several slaves. Is it surprising that Epicurus admonishes us to eliminate pain and achieve tranquility? It was easy for him to suggest such conduct because he forced slaves to tend to his tranquil garden. Was Epicurus an evil hypocrite, like Jefferson and Washington? 

In a war, is it an evil act to kill civilians intentionally? The Greeks slaughtered or enslaved women and children of nations they conquered and yet, we admire them for the works of art they produced at the same time. Are there degrees of evil?

Who is more evil, George Bush or Saddam Hussein? Who of the two killed more women and children? It is questionable if Bush or Hussein killed more civilians. Are they both evil? Are the Americans who supported the Gulf War, evil? They made it possible for Bush to kill civilians. An analysis of the morality of historical events can be very enlightening with regard to the hidden motivations of the perpetrators, the participants and the alleged victims.

Stalin killed 30 million of his fellow Russian civilians in the 1930’s. Hitler killed five or six million Jews. Churchill, Roosevelt and Truman intentionally burned alive about 2 million German and Japanese women and children as part of their terror-bombing campaigns. What is the definition of a mass-murderer? Is it always the victor, who writes the history of a war and who defines war crimes? Are some of these mass-murderers more evil than others are or, are all mass-murderers evil?

The flight-crews of the American bombers dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and incinerated about half a million Japanese women and children. These soldiers did their prescribed duty. They were even proud to do so. Were they heroes, or were they war criminals?

Were the Nazis heroes or were they evil because they incinerated millions of Jews? If they were evil, why do we acclaim as heroes the American bomber crews who obliterated 161 German cities, incinerated several million women and children in Europe, and vaporized 300,000 civilians in Japan by nuking their cities? Were the Germans less evil than the Americans were? Were the German SS-Men more moral because they gassed the Jews before incinerating them, whereas American and British aircrews burned their victims alive? Who was more evil, the American aircrews or the SS-Men? Were any of them evil?

A terrorist for one country is a heroic freedom fighter for another country. The American Government referred to Osama Bin Laden as an evil terrorist. Simultaneously, thousands, if not millions of Muslims around the world acclaimed him as a hero. Women even named their children after Osama Bin Laden. Is Bin Laden a sainted hero, or is he an evil terrorist? 

---

I think we are in the best light if we avoid the use of morally judgmental words like good or evil. Precision in language suggests the use of descriptive words without moral connotations, such as unproductive, counterproductive, inefficient, efficient, lawless, dangerous and murderous. The list of words depends on our vocabulary.

Studying of the relative nature of morality poses interesting questions and these questions make many people uncomfortable or angry because they often interfere with their personal view of morality or history. It is often painful to come to terms with the relative nature of the human concept we call morality. It is painful because, in part, we cannot judge as you alluded to in your first question. 

However, from a 10,000 foot view, our views about morality, what is right and wrong, have changed. Why? because we have gotten better at understanding these things. We are building on the thoughts of those before us and the historic understanding of right and wrong. We are learning more about the nuanced details in the consequences of our actions and seeing further than what we ever have before by constantly re-evaluating our positions.

I don't think the fact that human experience is subjective by nature and at variance in many instances is an argument that morality is truly relative. After all, ninety-nine people out of one hundred can be wrong, whether it regards the Good, the Beautiful, or the True. If we say that it's only a matter of opinion, we're essentially saying that claims about morality have no truth value. That doesn't mean that morality can't be relative to situations, and perhaps if that's what you mean, there still might be an objectively best way to act in that particular scenario.

And wouldn't you say murderous IS almost the very definition of a morally judgmental word?