Firstly, the idea that the earth was commonly thought to be flat in the 1400s is a myth. It was widely known in every civilized nation of the time that the earth was round. If you care to dispute that I’m pretty sure I can dig up some cites.
Secondly, I don’t see how the ideas are comparable. There is objective truth in geography because there is data that can be observed in accordance with the scientific method. If someone disputes that the earth is round, the truth of the matter can be shown through empirical observation (e.g. that ships sailing over the horizon start to disappear bottem first, showing that they’re passing over a curved surface). What data is relevant to morality? How can one moral code objectively be shown to be better than another?
How do you know this?
Why does it require justification?
OK, but here you’re arguing that since a large majority of people view it as wrong, it is wrong. Perhaps, but it doesn’t speak to the inherent rightness or wrongness of the actions. For instance, if sometime in the future the Nazi ideals became popular with a majority of people, would they suddenly be morally right? I’m sure you would say no, that regardless of how many people might think they are right, genocide in the name of “racial purity” is always wrong. However, since that’s the case, you can’t claim that because the ideas are now regarded as wrong, they are inherently wrong. It’s not fair to say that when something is unpopular that shows it is wrong, but when something is popular, it doesn’t matter, it’s still inherently wrong. Either the ideas and actions are somehow wrong in and of themselves (and if so, how?), or they’re wrong because people view them as wrong (but they’re right when people view them as right).
Firstly, who cares? I found a website about people who STILL think the world is flat to this day. It don’t make it any less round.
Forget the philosophy class bullshit. Explain to me how any society or group of people would feel its “right” to have another group march into their towns and rape and kill the inhabitants. If you feel its not right for someone to do that to you, what gives another group the right to do it to someone else? Actions are “wrong” if they harm someone else. Why? Because if someone did it to you, you wouldn’t like it.
It doesn’t matter if we have come to agree with this statement or whether we have yet to discover it.
Of course not! That’s the whole point. There are some things are wrong regardless of our beliefs. It is not a matter of belief.
But your point is: How do we know genocide is inherently wrong, with any degree of certainty, without it being based on someone’s beliefs?
Admittedly, this is a difficult question to answer. Even in the geography example, it can be viewed as a matter of what people beleive, (ie. someone may not accept the scientific method as a way of determining “objective truth”.) However, regardless of what this person believes, it can be determined that the earth is round to a high degree of certainty.
There is obserbvable evidence that genocide is wrong, namely the pain, suffering and destruction is causes. Regardless of what a person may believe, the consequences of genocide determine it to be wrong.
as a jewish kid i was brought up to believe nazis are bad, but as an adult i always feeled compelled to question any absolute statement. the question is then, were they good for anybody?
were they good for jews? um…no.
were they good for germany? well they lost the war and gave germany an undying horrible legacy, so no.
were they good for hitler? being forced to suicide is probably the ultimate defeat, so no.
were they good for modern white supremacists? well since those are the groups that think the holocaust never happened, then obviously they didn’t do their job, so no.
were they good at their jobs? if their goal was to exterminate the jewish ‘race’, then they failed. so no.
were they good for people who invested in the movie ‘schindler’s list’? yes!
so to simply say they’re bad would have to be false.
Were they actually trying to eradicate the Jews or just focus the society on a common enemy? I mean Genocide isnt possible if you cant reach all the targets (like the ones in America). If the South Africans decide that whites are evil and need to be exterminated, then is that genocide or just purification?
Also I would question if good/bad is universal? I would like to hear from a chinese educated person. Did their history of WWII mention the Nazis killing 6 million people in concentration camps? Or did it concentrate on the 30 million chinese killed by the Japanese?
When Hitler was presenting his final solution someone questioned him about what the world would say. He answered “Who remembers the Armenians?” (maybe it wasnt the Armenians, it was just group that had been purged, I cant remember)
Is there a point to this question?
It dosn’t matter if you call it genocide, purification, ethnic clensing or Wacking Day. The end result is the same
Germany was extra evil because, as far as I know, they was the only country that created huge amounts of infrastructure (camps, railroads, etc) for the sole purpose of rounding people up like cattle and exterminating them.
Do you think that because they did not have the power to kill every Jew in the world that somehow lessons that evil?
What do you think? That every country teaches the same Euro-centric version of history as us? I’m sure that Chinese students learn the events of WWII as they pertained to China. Im also pretty sure that they feel that Imperial Japan was just as evil as Nazi Germany.
My point about the Genocide was made because earlier it was suggested that NAZIs were specially evil because they attempted Genocide. It was suggested that this is unique where racial purification is more commonplace and thus less evil.
The point about the Chinese’s history of WWII is that earlier it was suggested that bad/evil… is defined by the universality of its condemnation. If that is true then shouldnt all societies judge the evil similarly? I would guess that the Chinese history wouldnt even mention the Holocaust.
I get back to my original point. Evil is defined by a society at a given point in time. It is not a human species’ definition.
Sorry for not getting back to this thread sooner; I haven’t had the time to post in a few days.
The idea that since I wouldn’t like it if people did it to me then it must be wrong in general doesn’t withstand examination. There are plenty of things that I wouldn’t like done to me that society regards as right. I, for instance, would not like being incarcerated no matter the circumstances, and would consider anyone who did such a thing as harming me, but persumably you would support me being locked up if I commited actions that you find objectionable enough.
This still requires belief. It requires that a person believe pain, suffering, and destruction to be inherently negative events.
OF COURSE…any people who say otherwise are sadly mistaken and hopefully this post will fix this sad misunderstanding.
Both my Paternal Grandparents and thier parents and siblings were sent to concentration camps during World War II by the Germans. They did nothing. They committed no crime, hurt no-one and were good citizens. Despite all their good qualities these sub-human sociopaths more commonly known as NAZIs sent them to become slaves in terrible conditions for no other reason then that they were Jewish.
Mind you, they weren’t orthodox, or even particularly observant, but none the less they were Jewish.
Even now I can not fully comprehend the terrible things my grandparents and great-grandparents had to endure. Though if you want a better idea, you should read “Night” By Elli Wizel (sp?)
One thing that i do know is that though their entire families went into these concentration camps, only my grandparents and one or two siblings survivied (keep in mind that these were large families). The survivors were scarred their entire lives with numbered tatoos on thier left arm (still there today), and terrible memories that are painfull to recall.
ANYONE who can say that the people who did these things could not be bad people must consider that, though they may have been a product of their times, they were not forced to work in concentration camps, and the attempted extermination of Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies and other so called enemies of the state detracted from the war effort, and yet, these NAZIs went out of their away to foward the killing of the aforementioned races and others.
For further examples of the insane cruelty of these “people” one needs just look towards the inhumane medical experiments preformed on prisoners of concentration camps.
Oh…and by the way…anyone who want’s to defend these pigs (although i profane pigs by the association) can meet me in the pit and prepare themselves for the verbal lashing of their lives
DavidB1
Hopefully, you have read this entire thread, not just the title, I am not arguing whether the Nazis were bad or evil or not. If I had a time machine, I would go back and bump off Hitler first. This discussion centers around whether the Nazis were the worse example of Evil? is good/bad a universal concept? is our heritage defining the nazis as the ultimate evil (see my question about the chinese historians).
my original point is that throughout history societies have found methods/justifications to do “BAD” things. My conclusion is thats its a trait of the species. as grim as that sounds. I keep finding wonder advanced societies doing things that others find repulsive (inca’s human sacrafice,roman’s slaves, stalin, hitler, ToTo, Hutus, serbs,…) and this is all based on the current definition of “BAD”. I question the definition itself. its too dynamic.