Genocide: wrong?
Posted on: March 26, 2008 - 1:51am
Offline
Genocide: wrong?
Why is genocide wrong?
Please be specific.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
User login
Navigation
Why you should help.
Add it to your site!
Kelly, Rook, and Sapient blog
- Hershel Shanks and the Biblical Archaeology Review
- It's Christian Bashing Week!
- The Case Against Science?
- Segments from recent radio appearance
- Conversation with Jehovah's Witness [Part II]
- The original debaptism challenge
- Book Status as of 4/16/08
- Recent Discussion with Jehovah's Witness
- The Second Cross-Examination
- Carnival of the Godless #89
- Carnival of the Godless and more Vox
- The (ir)Rational Atheist--More Vox Day
- Response to Vox
The Atheist Response
MargaretDowney.com
- Atheist Alliance International Feed: AAI 2007 Convention DVD's Available Soon
- Atheist Alliance International Feed: 2008 AAI Convention Internet Streaming
- Atheist Alliance International Feed: National Day of Reason is May 1, 2008
- Blog of Sapient: The original debaptism challenge
- Margaret Downey's Blog: Atheist Alliance Convention 2008 registration
- MargaretDowney.com Blogs: Panel Discussion at DCCC
Offline 
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2008.
Frank Walton atheism sucks expose
Are you asking why is it wrong to kill a mass number of people who have something is common?
[edit: hit post too soon] Simm's right: the obvious answer is that killing mass amounts of people is awful, regardless of what they have in common, so what are you asking?
Will: no gyration without funkstification.
Genocide is not wrong.... until SOMEBODY puts it into context >.> ass
hehe
But seriously, its not wrong
"You are like a delightful random cruelty generator, master, poisoning all you touch. You are a testament to all organic meatbags everywhere." HK-47
I am asking why genocide is wrong. Why is the death of a particular group or race of people wrong? I have my reasons; I'm interested to hear other people's.
Q: Why is killing a group of people wrong?
A: Because it is wrong to kill lots of people.
This does not answer the question. You have answered, "because." Please demonstrate why this is wrong.
Doomed, I appreciate this answer as a starting point. Could you elaborate upon this?
Hold on there - "death" and "murder" are slightly different. When you say "genocide", you mean a group of people lumped together by something they have in common and then murdered. The mass killing of people is obviously abhorrent. What more do you need? It's the killing part that's awful. The fact that there was an arbitrary justification for it is irrelevant (though historically significant).
Will: no gyration without funkstification.
Okay. So you are saying it is wrong to kill people because it is wrong to kill. It is wrong to kill ANYTHING?
I have a feeling this will center around your definition of "wrong". I consider killing of animals in general repellant but necessary for eating. The killing of people isn't for food.
Just get to your point - there's no reason to go through the Socratic method.
Will: no gyration without funkstification.
Genocide is wrong because the Bible says it's wrong. Oh wait, it doesn't. Okay, genocide is wrong because it's not condoned by the Bible. Oh wait, it is condoned by the Bible. God even orders it. Hmm.
But seriously, genocide is wrong because it is the killing of people that is unjustified by any reason-based standard. If we are talking human genocide, then the crucial flaw is that there is no reasonable concept of separate and distinct human races. But even if there were such races, the killing would still be unjustified because you can't condemn a person merely for belonging to a particular race.
Q: "Isn't it a miracle that the universe/life/consciousness/myself exists?"
A: "No."
----
For any person P, question Q, and concept X
If the asking of Q depends on the existence of X, and P asks Q
Then X exists, and P should not be surprised of that
Actually, I said it's "abhorrent". It's fucking horrible. "Wrong" doesn't really cover it. Why is it terrible? Because not only is it murder, but it's murder on a mass scale with the added insult to injury of an arbitrary rationalization behind it.
What are you getting at?
Will: no gyration without funkstification.
It's wrong because you're killing a large group of people who are not necessarily a threat to you based on a commonality such as race or culture (among other things).
It's one thing to kill someone because they are attempting to do bodily harm to you but it's entirely another to murder families because you happen to think they are inferior, or wrong in some way, based on perceived cultural or political differences. (at work, typing fast sentence structure not great, lol)
Sounds pretty fucked to me.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
This has to be a trick question...
Do you have a specific group of people you have chosen to murder and are getting cold feet? Or is this a semantic philosophical question?
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
I'm really not trying to play a semantic game here, will, just so it's understood. I'm simply trying to pursue the logic. A typical argument for the bible being terrible is genocide; so I am trying to understand why it is so bad (again, let the record show: I do not support genocide, I am simply trying to be honest and ask questions).
You appear to be saying here: Genocide is wrong (terrible, specifically) because lots of people are being murdered.
To re-write this: Killing a group of people is wrong because lots of people are being killed (murdered, specifically). Murder, then, and the number of people involved are the qualification here? Will, in all patience, could you define murder for me and what amount of people constitutes a "large number"?
And, again, please understand this is not an attempt to bait you. If i am courting a philosophical system, it is my obligation to pursue the logic of that system. If it cannot reasonably account for all things within the system, I am not obliged to accept it. I will move on to find something more reasonable. Hence the particulars.
Genocide is wrong because it is:
1) killing a large group of people
2) who aren't necessarily a threat, (but could be)
3) and you are motivated to do so specifically because of something they all have in common.
Is this a correct analysis of you're statement?
So, it would be okay to commit genocide then if there were a small group of people who were a threat and it could be clearly understood the motivation was not because of their group identification, but some other reason?
But what if I killed entire families because of potential threat? Would that be wrong?
p.s. Thanks for weighing in on the subject. This is not about winning an argument; it is about finding the moral standard of materialism/rationalism. Please correct or clarify anything I have said that needs such amending.
no trick question Slimm. I'm looking for the moral standard used by rationalism/atheism to declare all things good or bad. That is all. If this is tedious for you or the questions too apparently small or semantic oriented, I would understand.
The answer to the main topic's question is:
www.google.it -> images -> search: kosovo massacre
Do you like it? No? Thats why the genocide is wrong.
hardly semantics Zues. At least not intentionally. I am pursuing the materialist/rationalist standard of right and wrong; but specifically in the case of genocide, as this is often a case for why God is so terrible. It seems significant to me at least.
I mean.. www.google.com, not .it.. sorry
You are saying it is wrong because I do not like it.
1. I do not like laws; therefore, laws are wrong.
2. I do not like exercising; therefore, exercising is wrong.
3. I do not like theism; therefore, theism is wrong.
4. I do not like atheism; therefore, atheism is wrong.
hmmm...
Sorry i tought you were human like me, let me explain:
Do you like child arms and brains, eyes, broken bones and blood baths all over the streets, the country side, and abandoned village? Usually people dislike genocides because they involve innocent civilians. Do you like the pictures about dead bodies of kids, women and oldmen that you can find by following the previous steps?
What has my like or dislike have to do with the moral quality of something? I'm pursuing a moral standard here Basileo (by the way, theist or atheist?). Do you measure the morality of something by whether you like it or not?
I measure the morality by looking at the consequences of an act, an action. (i am atheist anti-clerical) If this action has killed 100.000 innocent civilians, i think is totally wrong. But honestly, if you really like genocides i would think you are mad and you don't know what you are talking about.. so, do you like genocides? If yes, why?
Therefore, the morality of, let's say, "action A" is determined by said consequences of "A." But what standard do you use to determine the morality of the consequences? I would like to see that answer. However, let us pursue a different path for now, as I believe this boils down to your value for human life. Am I correct here? It is wrong to kill a lot of people because humans have value. But may I ask what gives a human value?
Morally
Murdering deprives one's right to live. In American society(not sure where you are from), everyone has an equal right to a life, and taking one's life is viewed as morally and legally wrong. This deprivation of a person's life means taking the other person's right to exist, which is morally wrong. Denying the right to life of one person or a group of people tied together by a particular characteristic(genocide) is the same action, but at a greater magnitude, hence a macrocosm of the singular act of murder. Murder/genocide are not to be confused with self defense, that is if someone is trying to deny you(or sometimes your family,friends, nation, or special group are applied) your right to life, and you defending that right by taking theirs as the only means of protecting yours. That is not the same as murder/genocide.
Biologically
If we are speaking merely in terms of preserving and propagating your own particular genetic profile via passing it onto your progeny, if that is more effectively achieved by wiping out rival groups, same species with slightly different genetic profiles, with whom you are competing with for resources, land, dominance of global/local ecosystem, etc., then that type of genocide seems perfectly permissible provided in doing so you do not damage your ecosystem or confer considerable disadvantages to your own(and that of your progeny's) survival.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
Value (But we should say: Respect) for Human life was born during the Enlightenment. After a long period of tyranny, irrationality, superstition, crusades, and inquisitions.. someone said: Why are we killing each other? Can't we both live in peace?
"It was an age of optimism, tempered by the realistic recognition of the sad state of the human condition and the need for major reforms. The Enlightenment was less a set of ideas than it was a set of attitudes. At its core was a critical questioning of traditional institutions, customs, and morals. Some classifications of this period also include 17th-century philosophy, which is typically known as the Age of Reason." From Wikipedia.
So, basically, the respect for human life makes the difference between savage beasts and civilized humans. The genocide is wrong, because is not good to kill people just because they are black/white/red/purple/yellow or because 1000 years ago they were enemies of your country.
It also depends on your education, the country, the period (Just think about crusades, fascism, nazism, communism).. culture is an important factor. If you live in a non-democratic country where the police shoot on protestors, you may have less respect for the human life than an English gentlmen (It depends also on your personal opinions)
I believe this book would provide the type of answer you are looking for. Universally Preferable Behavior:A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics. 2007 Stefan Molyneux. Hope that helps
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
Or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights