The Holocaust was Wrong

[doubtingmerle]

In this thread I am going to argue for the thesis that the Holocaust was wrong.

It feels odd to need to make this thread. I think the overwhelming majority here agree with me: The Holocaust was wrong. Case closed.

Nevertheless, in another thread where I mentioned that Hitler was wrong, another member insisted that I needed to make the case to support my claim. Why? Don't we all just agree that what he did was wrong? For some reason, this member insisted that I needed to make the case.

In this thread I will limit my argument to the Holocaust. If I can show that the Holocaust was wrong, then I think I have made the case that Hitler was wrong.

The Holocaust was wrong. Six million Jews lost their lives. Imagine that. They were ordinary people going about their lives. Their lives were ended prematurely. All their hopes and dreams and ambitions were gone. Who among us would want to live in a world where something like this is considered normal? Who among us would want to live in a world where rulers could snuff out our lives simply because they wanted to?

Not only were they killed, but they suffered horribly. They were put into concentration camps where they were starved. This caused immense suffering. Again, who among us would want to live in a world where rulers could do this to people?

And think of all their loved ones who never got to enjoy life with their friends and relatives that were killed. Think of all those who had depended on their relatives, and now had to go though life without their loved ones that were locked up or killed. Again, who would want to live in a world where something like this is normal?

So based on these reasons, I conclude that the Holocaust was harmful to people. I would never want to live in a world where humans were treated that way. It is my hope that none of us ever see anything as horrible as the Holocaust.

 

[Lost4words]

Who would realistically argue it was right? Only a deluded, sick individual.

 

[Ophiolite]

Nevertheless, in another thread where I mentioned that Hitler was wrong, another member insisted that I needed to make the case to support my claim. Why? Don't we all just agree that what he did was wrong? For some reason, this member insisted that I needed to make the case.

I have seen it argued that the Holocaust was engineered by his deputies without his knowledge. I don't ascribe to that view, but if your protagonist on the other thread does, then demonstrating the wrongness of the Holocaust would not automatically demonstrate that Hitler was wrong.

 

[Dave L]

In this thread I am going to argue for the thesis that the Holocaust was wrong.

It feels odd to need to make this thread. I think the overwhelming majority here agree with me: The Holocaust was wrong. Case closed.

Nevertheless, in another thread where I mentioned that Hitler was wrong, another member insisted that I needed to make the case to support my claim. Why? Don't we all just agree that what he did was wrong? For some reason, this member insisted that I needed to make the case.

In this thread I will limit my argument to the Holocaust. If I can show that the Holocaust was wrong, then I think I have made the case that Hitler was wrong.

The Holocaust was wrong. Six million Jews lost their lives. Imagine that. They were ordinary people going about their lives. Their lives were ended prematurely. All their hopes and dreams and ambitions were gone. Who among us would want to live in a world where something like this is considered normal? Who among us would want to live in a world where rulers could snuff out our lives simply because they wanted to?

Not only were they killed, but they suffered horribly. They were put into concentration camps where they were starved. This caused immense suffering. Again, who among us would want to live in a world where rulers could do this to people?

And think of all their loved ones who never got to enjoy life with their friends and relatives that were killed. Think of all those who had depended on their relatives, and now had to go though life without their loved ones that were locked up or killed. Again, who would want to live in a world where something like this is normal?

So based on these reasons, I conclude that the Holocaust was harmful to people. I would never want to live in a world where humans were treated that way. It is my hope that none of us ever see anything as horrible as the Holocaust.

We are all born that wicked. Only God keeps us above our capacities for evil. If you take away people's food they become cannibals. In the Old Testament and in the siege of Jerusalem in AD70 refined mothers ate their young.

God uses at least 4 judgements on nations we can see all around us. Famine, war, sickness, and wild animals we can link to many diseases.

He tells us to pray for rulers so we can have peace.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Who would realistically argue it was right? Only a deluded, sick individual.

I guess I can I see it based on atheists always speaking against the "genocide" of the Bible. Pointing out that not all genocides are the same, "The Devil in the details" might actually be worth it. But even that is pretty tough, taking some stabs at it myself; because you end up having to admit that way back in time their was a different type of morality and ethics than the World that we live in now after the Gospel, Christianity and Humanism has become the norm and folks don't want to hear that for the most part.

 

[Strathos]

Who would realistically argue it was right? Only a deluded, sick individual.

I think it's a devil's advocate thing. As in, 'if you don't have a firm grounding for your morality, by what standard do you say the Holocaust was wrong'? Not that they don't actually believe it was wrong.

 

[bèlla]

The Shoah was wrong and a travesty to the Jewish people and the world at large. Anyone who justifies their suffering through the misapplication of scripture or believes they deserved it (on account of Christ's death) is wholly wrong. Using the bible to support demonic ideals is Satanic. We are called to love our neighbors. The bible makes no distinction between them.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

 

[A_Thinker]

The Holocaust was wrong. Six million Jews lost their lives. Imagine that. They were ordinary people going about their lives. Their lives were ended prematurely. All their hopes and dreams and ambitions were gone. Who among us would want to live in a world where something like this is considered normal? Who among us would want to live in a world where rulers could snuff out our lives simply because they wanted to?

Not only were they killed, but they suffered horribly. They were put into concentration camps where they were starved. This caused immense suffering. Again, who among us would want to live in a world where rulers could do this to people?

And think of all their loved ones who never got to enjoy life with their friends and relatives that were killed. Think of all those who had depended on their relatives, and now had to go though life without their loved ones that were locked up or killed. Again, who would want to live in a world where something like this is normal?

So based on these reasons, I conclude that the Holocaust was harmful to people. I would never want to live in a world where humans were treated that way. It is my hope that none of us ever see anything as horrible as the Holocaust.

Actually, another four million non-Jews suffered and died with the Jews in the Holocaust. Hitler's net was pretty broad.

Also, at least 6 million Africans died in the course of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

In addition to that, around 50 million worldwide died in World War 2, which Germany (under Hitler), Italy, and Japan prosecuted.

Unforunately, another 100 million died at the hands of communists Stalin and Mao.

And, I believe, another 2 million died in the intertribal warrings between the Rwandan Hutu and Tutsi clans.

The world is an evil place ... and Hitler and the Holocaust are notables within it.

 

[royal priest]

In this thread I am going to argue for the thesis that the Holocaust was wrong.

It feels odd to need to make this thread. I think the overwhelming majority here agree with me: The Holocaust was wrong. Case closed.

Nevertheless, in another thread where I mentioned that Hitler was wrong, another member insisted that I needed to make the case to support my claim. Why? Don't we all just agree that what he did was wrong? For some reason, this member insisted that I needed to make the case.

In this thread I will limit my argument to the Holocaust. If I can show that the Holocaust was wrong, then I think I have made the case that Hitler was wrong.

The Holocaust was wrong. Six million Jews lost their lives. Imagine that. They were ordinary people going about their lives. Their lives were ended prematurely. All their hopes and dreams and ambitions were gone. Who among us would want to live in a world where something like this is considered normal? Who among us would want to live in a world where rulers could snuff out our lives simply because they wanted to?

Not only were they killed, but they suffered horribly. They were put into concentration camps where they were starved. This caused immense suffering. Again, who among us would want to live in a world where rulers could do this to people?

And think of all their loved ones who never got to enjoy life with their friends and relatives that were killed. Think of all those who had depended on their relatives, and now had to go though life without their loved ones that were locked up or killed. Again, who would want to live in a world where something like this is normal?

So based on these reasons, I conclude that the Holocaust was harmful to people. I would never want to live in a world where humans were treated that way. It is my hope that none of us ever see anything as horrible as the Holocaust.

Those who believe that Utopia can be achieved prior to Christ's return deny that humanity is a race that is fallen in Adam and can only be restored through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
This why they often resort to violence, re-education centers, and genocide against those that don't fit their Utopian ideologies.

 

[Strathos]

Those who believe that Utopia can be achieved prior to Christ's return deny that humanity is a race that is fallen in Adam and can only be restored through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
This why they often resort to violence, re-education centers, and genocide against those that don't fit their Utopian ideologies.

"Utopia" literally means "no place".

 

[Dave L]

The Shoah was wrong and a travesty to the Jewish people and the world at large. Anyone who justifies their suffering through the misapplication of scripture or believes they deserved it (on account of Christ's death) is wholly wrong. Using the bible to support demonic ideals is Satanic. We are called to love our neighbors. The bible makes no distinction between them.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

How do you view God's punishment of the world and later Judah and Israel in the OT?

 

[muichimotsu]

In this thread I am going to argue for the thesis that the Holocaust was wrong.

It feels odd to need to make this thread. I think the overwhelming majority here agree with me: The Holocaust was wrong. Case closed.

Nevertheless, in another thread where I mentioned that Hitler was wrong, another member insisted that I needed to make the case to support my claim. Why? Don't we all just agree that what he did was wrong? For some reason, this member insisted that I needed to make the case.

In this thread I will limit my argument to the Holocaust. If I can show that the Holocaust was wrong, then I think I have made the case that Hitler was wrong.

The Holocaust was wrong. Six million Jews lost their lives. Imagine that. They were ordinary people going about their lives. Their lives were ended prematurely. All their hopes and dreams and ambitions were gone. Who among us would want to live in a world where something like this is considered normal? Who among us would want to live in a world where rulers could snuff out our lives simply because they wanted to?

Not only were they killed, but they suffered horribly. They were put into concentration camps where they were starved. This caused immense suffering. Again, who among us would want to live in a world where rulers could do this to people?

And think of all their loved ones who never got to enjoy life with their friends and relatives that were killed. Think of all those who had depended on their relatives, and now had to go though life without their loved ones that were locked up or killed. Again, who would want to live in a world where something like this is normal?

So based on these reasons, I conclude that the Holocaust was harmful to people. I would never want to live in a world where humans were treated that way. It is my hope that none of us ever see anything as horrible as the Holocaust.

The problem I see is that just agreeing that something is wrong is not sufficient to conclude it is wrong in an objective or rational fashion, because mere consensus is faulty reasoning to reach a conclusion, even if the conclusion is correct by rational argumentation and demonstrable evidence.

If we cannot justify the moral claims but merely assert it as "common sense", then we stifle any real critical thought on morality in the first place and just assume it's purely about agreeing on something and reaching a popular consensus without any regard to the essence of morality as regards semantics, ontology and epistemology

So yeah, I agree the Holocaust is wrong, but I think we may disagree as to why it was wrong and thus are not seeking to find common ground and understanding about morality in terms of the principles versus the conclusions reached. Which, again, can be true, but not reached through valid logical inference, deduction, etc, but mere rhetoric, which is insufficient to reach conclusions that are persistent and defensible apart from popularity

 

[doubtingmerle]

The problem I see is that just agreeing that something is wrong is not sufficient to conclude it is wrong in an objective or rational fashion, because mere consensus is faulty reasoning to reach a conclusion, even if the conclusion is correct by rational argumentation and demonstrable evidence.

If we cannot justify the moral claims but merely assert it as "common sense", then we stifle any real critical thought on morality in the first place and just assume it's purely about agreeing on something and reaching a popular consensus without any regard to the essence of morality as regards semantics, ontology and epistemology

So yeah, I agree the Holocaust is wrong, but I think we may disagree as to why it was wrong and thus are not seeking to find common ground and understanding about morality in terms of the principles versus the conclusions reached. Which, again, can be true, but not reached through valid logical inference, deduction, etc, but mere rhetoric, which is insufficient to reach conclusions that are persistent and defensible apart from popularity

I have stated in the opening post why I think it was wrong. If you have a different reason for thinking it was wrong, please state your reason for thinking it was wrong.

 

[muichimotsu]

I have stated in the opening post why I think it was wrong. If you have a different reason for thinking it was wrong, please state your reason for thinking it was wrong.

Stating is not the same thing as justifying, but from what I gather, you're strawmanning the opposition, as if they're saying it's normal for the Holocaust to have happened, when I'm pretty sure the defense of the Holocaust as "good" requires underlying assumptions about well being and such that most would not find compelling. And I also don't think people are trying to establish some categorical imperative, where it's universally approved that power can be used to oppress others, because that would not be in their best interests universally.

But the problem still remains: agreeing that the Holocaust is wrong is pretty common agreement, but there's still underlying disagreements on other issues, so it's like the ubiquity of people enjoying ice cream or such, but not liking certain vegetables or the like. Anecdotal examples of someone justifying it or bringing the statement into question on terms of justification that is rational and not merely an appeal to emotion or such (not that you're doing that, far as I can tell) is not indicative that the idea of the Holocaust being wrong is something that is a controversial statement

Part of the issue I see is the idea about the moral statement itself and what it entails, which is moral semantics versus moral ontology or moral epistemology. It's possible we agree on the conclusion, but not the nature of what the statement itself means in relation to the moral disapproval: moral realism or subjectivism, for instance, which have several variants. A moral statement being something based on the reliability of an observer is different than it being about some empirical fact we can observe independent of our opinions

 

[doubtingmerle]

Stating is not the same thing as justifying, but from what I gather, you're strawmanning the opposition, as if they're saying it's normal for the Holocaust to have happened, when I'm pretty sure the defense of the Holocaust as "good" requires underlying assumptions about well being and such that most would not find compelling.

Actually, I think the other person agrees with me that the Holocaust was wrong. That is not the point. The point is that he insisted over and over that I needed to state my reasons for thinking the Holocaust. Fine. I finally humored him. I came here and stated my reasons for thinking the Holocaust was wrong.

Part of the issue I see is the idea about the moral statement itself and what it entails, which is moral semantics versus moral ontology or moral epistemology. It's possible we agree on the conclusion, but not the nature of what the statement itself means in relation to the moral disapproval: moral realism or subjectivism, for instance, which have several variants. A moral statement being something based on the reliability of an observer is different than it being about some empirical fact we can observe independent of our opinions

You apparently also think the Holocaust was wrong, but seem to be stating that your reasons differ from mine. Would you like to share your reasons for thinking the Holocaust was wrong?

 

[muichimotsu]

You apparently also think the Holocaust was wrong, but seem to be stating that your reasons differ from mine. Would you like to share your reasons for thinking the Holocaust was wrong?

Not the reason, though perhaps the nature of the statement that the Holocaust is wrong, because it gets into a contention I've found with many theists (not that you're a theist) that morality must be mind independent facts rather than empirical facts about reality.

The subjectivity of morality is something I find theists or even moral absolutists in general struggle with because of a common meaning of subjective as purely personal and relative rather than the initial starting point we have to use for moral assessments and understanding.

We can agree that the Holocaust or genocide in general is wrong because we understand the value of human life, even if there can be disagreements about the grounding of that value, which gets into the semantics and ontology of morality.

Agreeing with theists, or even Christians specifically, that murder is wrong does not mean we have the same definition or qualification as to what murder consists of in acts, and the Holocaust is another example, in that I tend to find it common that theists will argue that I as a nontheist have no basis for my morality that isn't purely relative, which I find not only oversimplifying, but insulting my intelligence to think I just conform to morality out of fear or for social approval

 

[Sketcher]

It was most certainly wrong, everyone who was rounded up and killed was an image-bearer (Gen 1:26-27). And it wasn't for any crimes that they had committed - it was for being Jewish. Not what they had done or had neglected to do, but for who they were.

 

[bèlla]

How do you view God's punishment of the world and later Judah and Israel in the OT?

Who am I to question God? Are you suggesting He supported Hitler's actions or authorized them? I hope not.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

 

[jayem]

Not to get off topic...

Everyone can agree it was a moral atrocity and crime against humanity to murder millions of non-combatants, including children and the elderly, purely because of their ethnicity.

Even though the numbers are smaller, is it any less of a moral atrocity to murder, maim, and sicken 10s of thousands of non-combatants, including children and the elderly, with atomic bombs because it might end a war more quickly?

 

[muichimotsu]

Who am I to question God? Are you suggesting He supported Hitler's actions or authorized them? I hope not.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

God clearly turned a blind eye in the same vein of just giving and taking protection for the ancient Israelites, if we can even grant historical status to a sizeable chunk of the old "history". Why would it be any different in modern times where God seems to be less and less relevant in making moral assessments, especially when people can invoke God for their totalitarian regimes, as the Nazis did?