Quote:
Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II
yeah, my point is that countries that judged other as criminal for their persecutions didn't consider themselves as such for their own persecutions.
As per Italy, although there was no law as such, people had to face mockery and social discrimination anyway, and it's still quite strong in Italy and Spain today, again mainly because of the darn catholic church..
..it's still abhorrent, and a form of persecution.
Yeah, I like Graham Norton too, not as good as Jonathan Ross though  |
yeah, my point is that countries that judged other as criminal for their persecutions didn't consider themselves as such for their own persecutions.
Right. Because at that time, it was de facto
not criminal, it was the letter of the law, almost worldwide. Yet almost universal worldwide state persecution of or sanction of Homosexuality by imprisonment is
not the same as outright murder without trial and due process of law for the supposed 'crime' of being gay, or even suspicion of being so. There is no 'moral equivalence' whatsoever, and it seemed as though an attempt was being made to make one.
At the time, and of course wrongly, homosexuality was by a Judeo-Christian inspired, almost universally followed though erroneous 'Ethical standard' considered a crime. Britain was by no means alone in this (as you have noted, though I'm not sure why Britain was singled out), in fact it was as previously stated the worldwide norm.
Murdering gay people or suspected gay people outright was absolutely not.
Point being, the world at large was 'guilty' of the persecution of gay people (not specifically Britain as you have acknowledged )....agreed. What the world was
not guilty of was their systematic, wholesale execution, and attempted absolute eradication.
Quite different things, I'm sure you'll agree. Does this make me 'guilty' of 'moral relativism'? Absolutely, unashamedly and gladly. Most people are....and I stand by it.
Thankfully, I'm not alone. Millions of people from many nations happened to agree with me and took up arms to defeat Nazism.
A good thing, I'm sure we can both agree on. 'Relatively speaking'.
BTW Stern that amounts to partial agreement that some things are indeed relative, as you stated. I do believe however that the case of Turing and Nazi policy against gays are not comparable at all, in terms of being equally 'immoral'. That is a 'value judgment', not an 'absolute truth', which happily the vast majority of people share. There is no such thing as an 'absolute universal morality', I wish there was.