Is morality predictable? I mean, how does donh know for sure the slaughters conducted by Hitler and Stalin were wrong in the objective sense? What does he use as a standard by which to judge?
Good questions that are difficult to answer. I will make the attempt, you will most likely disagree, and nothing will be solved except that my theories will be more reasoned out. Some of this may look like paraphrasing from various philosophers that I have dabbled in and agreed with on key points. Rough draft:
Man exists as his own entity. The right to individual freedom is absolute, for without this freedom he is a slave. Man has free will, which is not granted upon him by any entity but present in all living things. These rights can be taken away by an offending party, but are nonetheless rights in a universal sense. When men come together and form a society, the goal should be a preservation of these rights. Together, but still individually free, they can more easily ensure that others cannot infringe upon their moral right to freedom. When defending one's own rights, there is a safety in numbers (hence the conflict between individual right based capitalism versus communal rights based communism). This is what sets our living rights apart from the living rights of animals who still maintain free will in a loose sense (and in many species do form small societies). These rights exist with or without a supernatural being. If somehow it was proven tomorrow (impossible) that a supernatural being did not exist, chaos would not ensue. Animals would still have their rights to free will (in a loose form) and humans would still continue to fight against anything that took away their absolute right to free life...
Stalin took the rights of others away in millions of ways= immoral
Hitler = ditto, immoral
And yes I do believe that Hussein has infringed upon the people of the world, out country, and his own country with his actions which make him immoral. Actions against him are therefore moral. Morality is predictable.
Anyway, something like that. You put me on the spot...
Thanks for taking time to spell out briefly your philosophical take on the questions. I don't see anything in there that strikes me as wildly unreasonable.
There's a bit of a nub that comes into the picture, though, and that is how we attach the moral equivalent of " good" to freedom, and the moral equvalent of "bad" to slavery. This is done with a great amount of consistency throughout history.
It is it really fair to say that Stalin was "wrong" in taking away other people's rights if the moral standard is rendered from each human "existing as his own entity?" In that case ""One man's freedom is another man's slavery" and there's really no need to be concerned about it.