Can it be moral to engage in genocide?

[InigoMontoja]

Then it would always be moral. Such a universal and unaltering consensus doesnt exist however.

So what about the statement "Newborn babies should never be grabbed by the feet and smashed against a wall". I think we could make a consensus on that.

 

[Isambard]

So what about the statement "Newborn babies should never be grabbed by the feet and smashed against a wall". I think we could make a consensus on that.

It wasnt a consensus historically among the Spartans and a number of other ancient societies. Granted in the Spartan case, didnt smash the baby againt a wall, merely left it out to die.

 

[lawtonfogle]

So what about the statement "Newborn babies should never be grabbed by the feet and smashed against a wall". I think we could make a consensus on that.

What if you had proof beyond any doubt this person would cause the extermination of the human race (and for simplicity, we will assume the extermination of the human race is a bad thing, k).

 

[InigoMontoja]

What if you had proof beyond any doubt this person would cause the extermination of the human race (and for simplicity, we will assume the extermination of the human race is a bad thing, k).

What if they had a power level OVER 9000!?!?!

It wasnt a consensus historically among the Spartans and a number of other ancient societies. Granted in the Spartan case, didnt smash the baby againt a wall, merely left it out to die.

I see.

So what about the statement "morality is a matter of consensus". That in itself is a moral statement. This poses huge problems. There are many societies that have said it is not a matter of consensus. Your statement is self refuting.

 

[kiwimac]

What if you had proof beyond any doubt this person would cause the extermination of the human race (and for simplicity, we will assume the extermination of the human race is a bad thing, k).

You would then be guilty of assuming that the adult is somehow present in the infant BEFORE the infant has had a chance to experience all the things in life which might change or alter that presentment. Nope, still not acceptable.

 

[Merlin]

I really hope there is someone here that does believe that genocide can in certain circumstances be moral or justified.

Yup
me... me...

 

[stan1980]

So what about the statement "Newborn babies should never be grabbed by the feet and smashed against a wall". I think we could make a consensus on that.

You've seen The Omen, right? I for one am taking no chances if my newborn is born with a 666 birthmark on its scalp.

 

[Isambard]

So what about the statement "morality is a matter of consensus". That in itself is a moral statement.

There is a difference between a descriptive statement and a normative one. Saying morality is relative and based on a consensus is a descriptive statement accounting for all the different moral and ethical systems along with all the variations that time has produced. The statement is thus objective as it is evidenced. If you disagree, then show evidence for a universal ethical system.

This poses huge problems.

Facts tend to pose problems with positions based on faith alone.

There are many societies that have said it is not a matter of consensus.

Many societies have also said the world is flat. Faith=/ evidence.

Your statement is self refuting.

No its not

 

[Bombila]

Morals, as has been shown, change with times and peoples
Personally, I think wrong is a good word.

wrong (adj.)

late O.E., "twisted, crooked, wry," from O.N. rangr, earlier *wrangr "crooked, wry, wrong," from P.Gmc. *wrangaz (cf. Dan. vrang "crooked, wrong," M.Du. wranc, Du. wrang "sour, bitter," lit. "that which distorts the mouth"), from PIE *wrengh- "to turn" (see wring). Sense of "not right, bad, immoral, unjust" developed by c.1300. Wrong thus is etymologically a negative of right (from L. rectus, lit. "straight"). L. pravus was lit. "crooked," but most commonly "wrong, bad;" and other words for "crooked" also have meant "wrong" in It. and Slav. Cf. also Fr. tort "wrong, injustice," from L. tortus "twisted." Wrong-headed first recorded 1732. To get up on the wrong side (of the bed) "be in a bad mood" is recorded from 1801.

Whatever the moral justification given for genocide in whatever time and place, it is always wrong.

 

[mont974x4]

No. And the wiping out of enemies in the Bible wasn't done for the purpose of wiping them out because of racial superiority but to combat oppression.

And to protect Israel from "playing the harlot" by following false gods. Things did not go well when Israel did not obey those commands.

 

[stan1980]

Morals, as has been shown, change with times and peoples
Personally, I think wrong is a good word.

wrong (adj.)

late O.E., "twisted, crooked, wry," from O.N. rangr, earlier *wrangr "crooked, wry, wrong," from P.Gmc. *wrangaz (cf. Dan. vrang "crooked, wrong," M.Du. wranc, Du. wrang "sour, bitter," lit. "that which distorts the mouth"), from PIE *wrengh- "to turn" (see wring). Sense of "not right, bad, immoral, unjust" developed by c.1300. Wrong thus is etymologically a negative of right (from L. rectus, lit. "straight"). L. pravus was lit. "crooked," but most commonly "wrong, bad;" and other words for "crooked" also have meant "wrong" in It. and Slav. Cf. also Fr. tort "wrong, injustice," from L. tortus "twisted." Wrong-headed first recorded 1732. To get up on the wrong side (of the bed) "be in a bad mood" is recorded from 1801.

Whatever the moral justification given for genocide in whatever time and place, it is always wrong.

"Wrong" is just a matter of opinion normally (except in maths). Sure, genocide is "wrong" to me, but to Hitler he probably didn't see it as "wrong". So therefore it isn't always wrong to everyone.

 

[Bombila]

"Wrong" is just a matter of opinion normally (except in maths). Sure, genocide is "wrong" to me, but to Hitler he probably didn't see it as "wrong". So therefore it isn't always wrong to everyone.

Hitler was a raving genocidal lunatic. I think we can all agree that homicidal maniacs are not good examples of people that can tell 'right' from 'wrong'.

There is, however, strong evidence that many people do understand that something is 'wrong' even when it is determined to be 'right' in a moral sense, by their cultural leaders. Some of the Israelites were disturbed by genocide, even though it was a direct order from God. Some Germans, those that didn't pretend nothing bad was happening, knew that the Holocaust was wrong, and did what they could to help their Jewish neighbours. Some Europeans (in America) understood that what was being done to Native Americans was wrong, and tried to mitigate the consequences. The Suffragettes knew that the historic inequal treatment of women was wrong, even with all of society against them.

So no, I don't think right and wrong are just a matter of opinion. I think people can largely be swayed by whatever the 'morality' of the day may be, because by and large most people go along to get along. But there are always some people who see more clearly, or see through the moral fashion, and can tell whether something really is wrong or not. And usually, history agrees with those few.

 

[Aerika]

"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." Deuteronomy 7:1-2,

do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..." Deuteronomy 20:16

Genocide is wrong regardless of what form of religious justification you use. It's sad that a large population of an educated society actually believes those versus were inspired by God.

Occam's Razor : entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

See it for what it was, mans attempt at justifying a war and genocide

 

[InigoMontoja]

Science has found evidence of a universal morality. I can't find the study right now but I remember a documentary where they did a study and found consistent, core ethical decisions made by people when presented dilemma's involving the prevention of a train accident.

 

[stan1980]

Hitler was a raving genocidal lunatic. I think we can all agree that homicidal maniacs are not good examples of people that can tell 'right' from 'wrong'.

But you'd agree what might be wrong to one person might not be wrong to another? So therefore, I'd still say it is a matter of opinion.

There is, however, strong evidence that many people do understand that something is 'wrong' even when it is determined to be 'right' in a moral sense, by their cultural leaders. Some of the Israelites were disturbed by genocide, even though it was a direct order from God. Some Germans, those that didn't pretend nothing bad was happening, knew that the Holocaust was wrong, and did what they could to help their Jewish neighbours. Some Europeans (in America) understood that what was being done to Native Americans was wrong, and tried to mitigate the consequences. The Suffragettes knew that the historic inequal treatment of women was wrong, even with all of society against them.

So no, I don't think right and wrong are just a matter of opinion. I think people can largely be swayed by whatever the 'morality' of the day may be, because by and large most people go along to get along. But there are always some people who see more clearly, or see through the moral fashion, and can tell whether something really is wrong or not. And usually, history agrees with those few.

Yes, there is normally a general consensus over what is "right" and what is "wrong", but that doesn't make it any less a matter of opinion.

Btw, how do you differentiate between what is "immoral" and what is "wrong"? To me, they are basically saying the same thing. If I hear someone say something is wrong or immoral, I normally just take it to mean that is their opinion, but there is no real difference.

 

[Isambard]

Science has found evidence of a universal morality. I can't find the study right now but I remember a documentary where they did a study and found consistent, core ethical decisions made by people when presented dilemma's involving the prevention of a train accident.

Do present it when you have the time. I suspect it has more to do with morality as a cultural bias than a universal morality.

 

[LittleNipper]

But yet it is still the wiping out of another people, despite the motive behind it. That is still technically genocide.

The people had the rest of the planet ---- Israel alone was for the Chosen People. Hitler moved from nation to nation and murdered select groups of his own volition, there was no GOD ordained mandated ---- unless Hitler was Moslem.

 

[mpok1519]

was that an anti-muslim remark?

lol geeze, theres never short supply 'round these parts....

 

[Merlin]

Genocide is wrong regardless of what form of religious justification you use. It's sad that a large population of an educated society actually believes those versus were inspired by God.

But God destroying His own creation is ok

 

[TooCurious]

But God destroying His own creation is ok

Except when that "creation" includes sentient, sapient moral agents; in that case, this "God" character is committing some significantly morally-problematic acts to say the least, if the accounts describing said destruction are to be believed. There's a difference between kicking over your sand castle and killing moral agents.

To answer the OP: Science fiction sometimes presents us with scenarios in which genocide is an acceptable course of action, because in science fiction it is possible to have entire races or species of which every member is steadfastly and irrevocably determined to slaughter innocents or destroy planets or something equally reprehensible. (For instance, in Doctor Who, there is a species called the Daleks who seek to eradicate all non-Dalek life in the universe; genocide against the Daleks might be justifiably argued.)

In actual reality, however, such absolutes do not exist. If genocide is defined as "the systematic and complete destruction of an entire racial or ethnic group by killing, or an attempt at the same," then genocide will always involve the killing of innocents, which my moral framework tells me is unacceptable. Membership in a particular racial or ethnic demographic is not sufficient grounds to warrant being killed.