This fool-proof defense, however, appears to be cracking. You see, the Hitler argument is basically the game of Chicken without cars (or in the case of Footloose...tractors). By saying "oh yeah, what about..." you are calling your opponent's bluff. If they truly believe that there are no absolute moral standards, or even if they argue that morality is dependent upon cultural norms, they either have to say that what Hitler did in Germany was acceptable or allow the point. Generally, the second option happens because, in our society, it is a given that Hitler was evil, however, a new crop of philosophers are becoming very vocal, are willing to play Chicken and they have no intention of swerving.
I read an article about this at Credo Magazine's blog and I found it rather interesting. The author, Richard Weikart, taught a seminar several years ago discussing the relationship between morality and evolution. He noted, "As we discussed Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism by the philosopher James Rachels, two students insisted that because morality had evolved by Darwinian processes, morality had no objective reality. According to them, there is no objective right or wrong, good or evil. Wondering how far they would take this, I posed the question: What about Hitler? Do you really mean to say that he was not objectively evil? Without hesitating, they argued that Hitler was neither good nor evil and one of them stated unequivocally: Might makes right." To these students, "survival of the fittest" is not just a physical reality but it is also a moral belief.
If natural selection is the correct, proper, and right way that animals interact with each other, then the statement "might makes right" is absolutely correct. The question then becomes whether "might makes right" is an indicative statement or an imperative statement? Is it a statement that describes the processes that take place in nature or is it a statement that describes how we ought to interact with each other and how we should judge that interaction? From the student's perspective, "might makes right" is both. For them, understanding natural selection doesn't render all morality obsolete, it just renders the traditional view of morality obsolete. They are replacing the antiquated, constraining and rather bothersome morality of a past generation with their own views of what is right, and for them, "might makes right" is the truth, but that truth is terribly subjective.
This development is liberating to some and downright petrifying for the rest of us because we've already seen what this morality produces. With an argument like "might makes right" performing 53,310,843 abortions since 1973 isn't a problem. Genocide, ethnic cleansing, rape, and sundry other actions would also be considered morally acceptable under this system because the victor is always right. Of course this view is so subjective that Hitler's actions become both right and wrong: right because he was successful in implementing his Final Solution, but wrong because he ultimately lost the war. With this system no truth is universal and this underlying assumption threatens to dismantle any religious assertion which argues that there is objective truth.
The fact is that this change of religion, from theism to atheism, has brought about a change in morality. While we have reason to be afraid, we have no reason to be surprised. We expected as much in 1776 when George Washington stated:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness — these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
