Hi
I don't think the question should be whether Hitler or Stalin were moral or
not in their prosecution of certain people. The question is on what grounds
they claimed that their actions were moral, defendable and rational.
Following Foucault's line of work doesn't need to imply moral relativism,
but instead an investigation of the conditions of ways of acting on oneself
and others in the name of morality, which is what Foucault called ethics.
So, instead of normative discussions of good and evil, we could investigate
how it's possible to claim that for example criminality or child abuse is
evil, and how it's possible even to define certain actions as criminal or
abusive.
Anders.
I don't think the question should be whether Hitler or Stalin were moral or
not in their prosecution of certain people. The question is on what grounds
they claimed that their actions were moral, defendable and rational.
Following Foucault's line of work doesn't need to imply moral relativism,
but instead an investigation of the conditions of ways of acting on oneself
and others in the name of morality, which is what Foucault called ethics.
So, instead of normative discussions of good and evil, we could investigate
how it's possible to claim that for example criminality or child abuse is
evil, and how it's possible even to define certain actions as criminal or
abusive.
Anders.