Re:How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick
by ninkendo on Wednesday March 07, 2018 @12:24AM
(#16534451)
Your response seems to just take the word “bad” out of the English language altogether. Your point seems to be “badness is subjective and therefore invalid.”
Would an amended statement make more sense?
“The nazis were bad to the degree that badness is a thing.”
Although it seems a bit silly to phrase things that way.
To the degree that silliness is a thing of course.
Re:How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick
by zaarn on Wednesday March 07, 2018 @02:41AM
(#16534893)
Badness is subjective, yes. Doesn't mean it's invalid, you can still hold onto subjective notions just fine.
Personally I believe that my notion of bad, good, evil and angels is purely subjective. Doesn't mean they have less value. I merely acknowledge the value is subjective. Like how a childhood toy holds sentimental value.
But, IMO, morality and ethics are subjective, so for a minority of people who don't share this consensus, yes, nazis aren't bad.
An alien race that has constructed a feudal slave society might not object to concentration camps at all. They might love the idea.
Nazis, from a purely objective standpoint, are not bad. But not good either. What they did is facts.
Only when the human observer comes in, ie, you and me, we introduce morality and you and me both think that those things are bad and should not be done.
Or how Death expressed it in Discworld; "take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy"