Re: (anti-) humanism, ethical innovation / genocide

Sebastian Gurciullo wrote:

>Humanist Europe produced Nazi Germany

Or, the Europe that produced humanism also produced Nazi Germany. Nazi
ideology itself was very hostile to all those softhearted doctrines, and in
their antihumanism and antiuniversalism, denied that Jews and other
non-Aryans were as fully human as Aryans.

And there's a difference between a critique of bourgeois society for its
hypocrisy in making "humanist" and "universalist" promises while
systematically denying most of its citizens the opportunity to develop
themselves fully, and a critque of the content of those promises in itself.

>Is it possible to have any moral code, religious or humanist, which rules
>out, once and for all, the possibility of transgression?

Hell, that would be boring, wouldn't it?

The question I'm trying to ask, and apparently not doing it well, is how
one chooses what boundaries are worth transgressing (e.g., various
restrictive sexual moralities, rules I'm happy to see broken) and those
which aren't (e.g. random enucleation).

Doug





Folow-ups
  • Re: (anti-) humanism, ethical innovation / genocide
    • From: John Ransom
  • Humanism and Antihumanism
    • From: Nathan Strait
  • Replies
    Re: (anti-) humanism, ethical innovation / genocide, Sebastian Gurciullo
    Partial thread listing: