Genocide: wrong?
Posted on: March 26, 2008 - 1:51am
Offline
Genocide: wrong?
Why is genocide wrong?
Please be specific.
- Login to post comments
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.
Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
Offline Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
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?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Genocide is not wrong.... until SOMEBODY puts it into context >.> ass
hehe
But seriously, its not wrong
What Would Kharn Do?
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).
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
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.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
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.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
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?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
gen·o·cide
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
True, this type of question really necessitates the explanation of the type of environment said genocide is occurring in. I was assuming he meant it to mean a modern, western democracy(democratically elected republic), in which human rights such as the right to live(where living means following the guidelines of the legal system in place), and the assumption of equality for people of different genders, racial heritages, etc. is observed.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
Thats a trick question.... right?
Look, genocide is not wrong, for the same reason war is not wrong, for the same reason killing is not wrong...
It has nothing to do with the action itself, but the context in which humans apply to it.
kill 1 to save a 1000... "but killing is wrong!"... err... no >.>
We go to war over stopping genocide -_- holy crap irony >.>
Once again, genocide is not wrong, only its context
What Would Kharn Do?
But as me and HeyZeusCreaseToe said, it isn't a matter of opinion as a matter of culture.
You say you go to war to stop genocides because your history (I guess you are American right?) has been characterized by many wars against tyrannic and cruel dictators. But i say i repudiate war as a means for settling international disputes, because since i was born, i was tought that war is wrong.. with no exceptions, there isn't a "good" or even "holy" war, all wars are wrong because they involve the use of violence. Who is right? It would be a hard, useless, neverending debate.
This question on the Genocide is totally senseless, is like:"Why is the sky called sky, and not Chocolate chip? I want a specific answer!"
I say "We" in the abstract, and despite being a hateful, warmongering, bastard... i am not american
But thats my point!
You say its wrong, yet it has no context... How can violence be wrong without context? how can war? it cant >.<
What Would Kharn Do?
And this context is? Make some examples, and a context that justifies genocides and wars.
Genocide makes sense when you are stupid , I mean human, .... how about mass suicide ??? Yeah , END evil ...... DIE ? KILL ?
WTF ?
Atheism Books.
con·text
the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
>.< I can justify any war, any genocide, any killing, any violence... but that still wont make it right or wrong
What Would Kharn Do?
Following the first argument (and thanks for an articulated position by the way; rather than, "because it is wrong"
, why does a person have the right to live? Other than contemporary ethics and laws, what is the basis for that? Does my existence necessitate my right to keep existing?
Also, is genocide morally wrong but biologically okay? How does one separate the two? Wouldn't a biological act of genocide still be act of aggression and make the attackers morally culpable?
Thanks for the heads up. I'll look for it.
Basileo, this question is not senseless. It is raised because atheists state a reason for not trusting the bible is the genocide found in the Old Testament. If one cannot raise a sound or cogent argument as to why genocide is wrong, then this charge ought to be left out of the (many) accusations brought against God's character. So far you have not produced a solid argument for why genocide is wrong. Now, if I follow your posts correctly you have at least 1) said it is wrong because you think it is wrong; 2) submitted that value of human life was not established until the age of enlightenment; and 3) stated that one's cultural context determines morality. The first point is not a valid argument. The second point would make all cultures after the age of the enlightenment morally culpable for their actions in genocide, but make any accusation of cultures prior to the enlightenment only guilty through ignorance. The third point leaves little ground for judging any moral value system as all are judged each by the other. If there is no absolute moral standard then genocide is not absolutely wrong, but only culturally wrong. If genocide is not absolutely wrong, then God is not wrong in commanding it.
Doomed, would you agree with or submit then that it is not valid to accuse God of being evil by an appeal to Old Testament genocide?
In the name of the culture, DIE ? Evolution does make sense , KILL KILL KILL ...
Mindless it is not , it is the divine plan of god ! Got my finger on the A bomb !
Atheism Books.
Ahhhh.. so thats the point of the topic, god and his genocides.. well, let me see:
"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may 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
The worldwide flood at the time of Noah as described in Genesis, chapters 6 to 8. From the description, it almost completely wiped out the human race, with the exception of Noah, his wife and sons and their wives.
The Passover incident described in Exodus chapters 11 and 12, in which all of the firstborn of all Egypt were slaughtered.
The conquest of Canaan, in which God ordered the Hebrews to completely exterminate the Canaanite people from the elderly to newborns and fetuses. This is described throughout the book of Joshua.
The near extermination of the entire tribe of Benjamin by the remaining 11 tribes, triggered by the serial rape and murder of a priest's concubine by a few Benjamites. See Judges, chapter 20.
Yes, god has been a bad guy..
Oh ok,
I'm one of those people that agree with Shakespeare when he said that "nothing is good are bad, but thinking makes it so". If the universe could talk it would know nothing of the good/bad concept, it only knows the many processes it carries out. But by us being human and having a thought process, we can forsee the consequences of an action like genocide. It's hard for me to explain exactly why it's a wrong thing to do. All I can say is that every conscious mind in this universe has already basically won the powerball 50 times in a roll just to have the opportunity to be here moving through Time and Space, and I couldn't just put an end to something like that. Doing it to masses would be even worse....
Slimm,
I will agree that its not valid to accuse God of being evil solely on the fact of genocide, i take into account HOW he used it... which by cultural standards is evil, BUT! in doing so, God also shows that he is inferior, for even having to undertake such actions... thus dispelling his omnipotence... and thus gaining my disdain for him >.>
In other words...
God + Genocide = Bad (invalid)
God + Genocide + Reasoning = Bad (valid)
What Would Kharn Do?
Oh. Okay. My personal interest lies more toward the idea of the supernatural, but we can talk about the bible, sure.
That's right. Also, the insult to injury is adding the arbitrary reason, usually simply to manipulate the hatred of followers. I'm not sure if that's biblically relevant, though. Maybe a certain group of people "displeased God" or something.
It doesn't matter how many. One person could be killed with some arbitrary rationalization, and I'd think it was wrong. If you mean like in the bible, Joshua killing man, woman, and child is pretty horrible. War in general is a kind of genocide that I would consider mass murder initiated by heads of state. Like when Kennedy left all those men to die at the Bay of Pigs, or Hitler wanted his Lebensraum.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Morality is a human concept, created out of our consciousness and ability to reason. One could say higher primates could be moral because of their increased intelligence and consciousness. There is a fairly fuzzy line between what kind of animal has consciousness in the sense that we understand it(pigs are not necessarily the same as humans eventhough we are both intelligent animals). Contemporary ethics and laws do determine the accepted morality inherent to a given situation. As for your existence necessitating your right to keep existing, I would say if you were trampled by an elephant, mauled by a bear, etc., they would not take into account your right to life. The human construct of rights is as far as we humans know, relegated solely to humans, and therefore doesn't really apply to the rest of the biological kingdom. Would you say a group of velociraptors that commit genocide against another group of velociraptors were morally culpable? I think the answer to that is the velociraptor construct of reality is based on instinct, our human concept of existence (for most people) takes into account more than our own personal survival at any cost. I would say that would really be a case of non-overlapping magisteria.
In the biological sense of survival with the purpose of propagating one's unique genetic profile, I am pretty sure anything goes, since morality as we understand it does not exist in that type of system.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
Ok, sorry for my 1st post on this site to be a response but this was too much to pass up.
I will assume that the OP is not just a troll. (That was my initial feeling, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt)
What you are looking for is a set of ethics, based upon logic, which would conclude that Genocide is morally unacceptable.
"Ethics is a major branch of philosophy, encompassing right conduct and good life. It is significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and wrong. A central aspect of ethics is "the good life", the life worth living or life that is satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than moral conduct." -Wikipedia
Frankly rather than answer your question directly, which is actually rather tricky, I SHOULD just encourage you to do a little reading. Or better yet, go to your local community college and sign up for a course on ethics. There are a gazillion underemployed phds in philosophy out there, and believe it or not, unless you get particularly unlucky, you're likely to run into some extremely interesting stuff, taught by some particularly bright people discussing something they are really passionate about. Stuff that can quite literally change the whole way you look at the world.
There are hundreds of different ethical systems out there. Personally, I use one based upon personal freedom more than anything else, but I use both Kant and Bentham's ideals quite a lot as well.
For me, I'm free to do anything I'd like to do, provided it does not interfere with anyone else's freedom, nor deprive him/her of anything which is theirs.
So for me, killing someone is wrong because I am depriving someone of something which is theirs (in this case their life). Genocide is really the same thing, just on a larger scale.
In order to be justified in killing someone, I must prove to my satisfaction that the action of NOT doing so does more harm to more people (i.e. Jeremy Bentham). I must also be sure that there is no other action I can rationally take.
If you break into my house when I'm home, I'm sure as shit gonna take your life on the assumption that if you break into my house knowing that I am home, your intent is to deprive me of my life or injury me, something it would be immoral to let you do. And I'm unlikely to be able to disable you without becoming injured or killed myself in the process.
If I was trying to justify killing all blonde people because a blonde person once robbed my house,
(actually it was a Mexican-American kid, which means Im really screwed cause Im a honorary mezzican according to my friends) that's just not rational. ALL blonde people didn't rob me, ONE robbed me. And even if I could prove (and one can't) that blonde people rob houses more than whatever other group you care to choose, it would surely not be the case that ALL blonde people rob houses and therefore in the interests of self-preservation killing all blonde people is necessary. I would surely be killing many many innocent people, with the much less than rational justification that SOME of them MIGHT in the FUTURE MAYBE do me harm.
In other words, your question is backwards to start with. You propose that genocide is rational, and we should dispute the claim.
I say that it is highly irrational and unethical on it's face, and YOU, as the person making the outrageous claim, are the one who must justify your claim, not the other way 'round.
Being open-minded isn't the same thing as being vacant.
Correct me if I am wrong or over-simplifying here Zuess, but nothing in this statements apparently tends toward genocide being absolutely wrong. I read that, on a biological level it makes sense (which I think is right in line with materialism/evolution; I think that is a valid conclusion--again, not that I am for genocide, but your conclusion follows from the basic premise of survival of the fittest) . I also read that morality is the result of consciousness and ethics have everything to do with cultural context. This does not seem to support OT genocide can be claimed as ultimately wrong, for right and wrong are arbitrary. As long as these qualities are arbitrary, God may or may not be wrong in such action. It is only wrong in this context. But should I live in a culture where it is not wrong, then this argument against God (that is, God was wrong because of the OT genocide) ceases to be an argument. I cannot accept the argument defined in this way as reasonable. But I am sure there is more to it. That is, I suppose, what I am after.
P.s. I realize this whole thread demonstrates my ignorance of the atheist ethical position, but that is one reason I am on this web site-- to learn more.
I must admit, I AM, I have a difficult time following your posts.