According to this philosophy professor (Susan Dwyer) she does not know if its wrong to murder the Jews or wrong to lynch black men or genocide is wrong. She even gave a justification for Hitler’s action such as pragmatic, non-moral and political. She seems to need an answer to the fundamental moral question before she is able to condemn an act to be wrong or right. I guess the slaughtering of black Christian children by Muslims in Sudan and the kidnapped girls in the brothel for sexual exploitation have to wait.
This professor is also a member of the International Advisory Board for the International Journal of Transitional Justice.
Do you see the irony? She is a member of the International Advisory Board for the International Journal of Transitional Justice. What kind of justice group is she part of if she does not know if killing of Jews and lynching of black men is wrong?
Ms. Dwyer, listen to this debate.
Update: Title changed to better reflect Dwyer’s position.
I am a recent Ph.D from Professor Dwyer’s department. This post mischaracterizes the position she takes in the clip. She does not say that she does not know IF it is wrong to murder Jews, she says that she does not know WHY killing is wrong (including genocide etc.)
The difference here may seem subtle but it is quite important. If I see a box on the table in my living room, I know THAT there is a box on the table in my living room but I may not know WHY there is a box on the table (I don’t know which of my roommates put it there or for what purpose). Similarly, Professor Dwyer takes the position that she does not know WHY killing is wrong but she goes so far as to claim THAT it is wrong (when she is discussing killing fetuses). This post, then, is misleading.
Further the title is even worse than the main text. She claims that she does now know WHY killing is wrong. In the text you claim falsely that she says she does know IF killing is wrong, and in the title of the post you misleadingly use the phrase ‘Lynching not wrong’ which implies the even stronger claim that her position is that killing is not wrong. She never says any such thing in the clip.
This post, then, seriously mischaracterizes her view. I am not sure if this is due to conceptual confusion or intellectual dishonesty but one has a(n absolute, non-relative) moral duty to exercise great care in characterizing the views of others. The failure to be fair to those who disagree with us is a major reason why we often fail to make progress on important debates like abortion. I hope that you take this more seriously in the future. I do commend you for at least providing the clip so that others may judge for themselves.
Hey Ryan,
I’ve looked at this clip for the first time today. I played the clip twice (and between both session I re-read your comment again). I wish to be fair and at least see your concern.
1.) “I am a recent Ph.D from Professor Dwyer’s department.”
That’s great! Is there a dual M.A. and Phd program at Maryland? Are you currently teaching anywhere as a lecturer, adjunct or (fill in the blank)?
2.) “The difference here may seem subtle but it is quite important. If I see a box on the table in my living room, I know THAT there is a box on the table in my living room but I may not know WHY there is a box on the table (I don’t know which of my roommates put it there or for what purpose). Similarly, Professor Dwyer takes the position that she does not know WHY killing is wrong but she goes so far as to claim THAT it is wrong (when she is discussing killing fetuses). This post, then, is misleading.”
I don’t want to be a stickler but I wonder if that analogy describes what’s going on fully here. The example you gave captures “why” in terms of telos or purpose, whereas I feel that the discussion of “why” here with your professor is instead about the rational basis. I think this point is important to remember for what I’m about to say below.
3.) “This post mischaracterizes the position she takes in the clip. She does not say that she does not know IF it is wrong to murder Jews, she says that she does not know WHY killing is wrong (including genocide etc.)”
I can see what you are saying here. But let me run this by you and tell me what do you think: If by “know” we mean “having justified true beliefs” or something close to it (I realize that there are issues with this, but I still find it useful to see knowledge this way, roughly stated, but alas I don’t want to pursue a tangent conversation), then I don’t think your dispute “She does not say that she does not know IF it is wrong to murder Jews” stands. She admits she has no basis for why killing humans are wrong. If she does not have rational justification for her beliefs, then Professor Dwyer cannot “know” if it’s wrong to kill Homo Sapiens (I presume you agree that Jews are a subset of humans). Thus, I think Andy’s original statement stands: “According to this philosophy professor (Susan Dwyer) she does not know if its wrong to murder the Jews or wrong to lynch black men or genocide is wrong.” She might believe it but that does not mean she knows it.
4.) “Further the title is even worse than the main text. She claims that she does now know WHY killing is wrong. In the text you claim falsely that she says she does know IF killing is wrong, and in the title of the post you misleadingly use the phrase ‘Lynching not wrong’ which implies the even stronger claim that her position is that killing is not wrong. She never says any such thing in the clip.”
Admittedly, I would probably phrase things a little different than Andy did. I agree, “She never says any such thing in the clip.” In the video, it seems she invokes a rather eclectic method in the scenario of arguing against the Nazis on “pragmatic, non-moral and political” grounds. I note that the title is “Moral Relativism,” but I believe Andy is onto something that I missed the first time when I read your comments: If we are to present a moral justification on not killing Jews on “pragmatic, non-moral and political” grounds, then are there not situations in which it is possible to apply the same method of arguing from “pragmatic, non-moral and political” grounds for the murder of the Jews, the lynching of a group with a skin color, etc? Can we say there is totally no situation in which one can give a pragmatic or political argument for one’s own or group’s benefit or advantage in not committing such atrocities? I would say that moral absolutes do hold us back even in some situations in which there can be pragmatic or political grounds to do otherwise.
5.) “This post, then, seriously mischaracterizes her view. I am not sure if this is due to conceptual confusion or intellectual dishonesty but one has a(n absolute, non-relative) moral duty to exercise great care in characterizing the views of others. The failure to be fair to those who disagree with us is a major reason why we often fail to make progress on important debates like abortion. I hope that you take this more seriously in the future. I do commend you for at least providing the clip so that others may judge for themselves.”
I say a hearty amen to clarity and fairness to our opponent at all times is something everyone ought to do.
Hello Ryan,
Thank you for taking time to respond. I hope you will read SlimJim’s response carefully.
She said, there may be other reasons for Hitler to kill the Jews. Please tell us the reasons since you a recent Ph.D from Professor Dwyer’s department. And are those reasons justified?
Are there only two options? conceptual confusion or intellectual dishonesty? So. the options are either I am stupid or I am a liar. Way to go with a post-graduate logic under Dwyer’s department. What if I said, either you are Dwyer’s lawyer or secret lover for responding here. How will you perceive my logic, let alone my attitude and character? I think you get my point.
Btw, if you have continued with my link on the post on a debate between Bahnsen and Stein you would have gotten my point. She does not know why and that was my point, she does not KNOW. Listen to the debate.
Hi Ryan,
Do you believe in moral absolutes?
It seems like he does! “but one has a(n absolute, non-relative) moral duty to exercise great care in characterizing the views of others.”
Thank you, SLIMJIM.