Genocide: wrong?
Offline Why is genocide wrong?
Please be specific.
- Login to post comments
Offline duplicate post
- Login to post comments
Offline Doomed, for you then it is culturally wrong. In your culture genocide is wrong; therefore, God was wrong to commission it? There is no absolute here. If it is wrong in this culture but acceptable in another culture's ethical schema, then we are at an impasse. God is both right and wrong. I am afraid I cannot accept moral relativity as a valid premise for evaluating God's actions.
"In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to access an ethical proposition's truth; moral subjectivism is thus the opposite of moral absolutism. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries (cultural relativism) or in the context of individual preferences (moral subjectivism). An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory."
Yay for learnding >.< and wiki...
While yes, culturally genocide is wrong where i live...
God is both right and wrong.
Actually, my point is, he is neither right nor wrong, until we apply context/reasoning to what he did... i think he's wrong for the very fact that hes supposedly a being of infinite power, ability, knowledge ,and foresight, and yet he allowed situations come to pass where he had to directly interfere... but the more i continue down that road, the more i begin to judge his godhood then of morality of genocide.
So, yet again... from CONTEXT in which genocide was used, i have determined that God was morally wrong, based upon the laws/positions of the culture of where i live... while my personal views have a similar answer, the reasoning is different... both are valid to me solely by the reasoning and CONTEXT ( 
) in which i used them, and will stay that way until some one can change my out look ^_^
What Would Kharn Do?
- Login to post comments
Offline 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.
Your deconstruction of every meaning seems to be bordering on what the definition of "is" is. That is not an ad hom, I just think getting too caught up in semantics of every little thing is a waste of time. That being said, I think what most people, myself included, have been saying in a fairly roundabout way is that right and wrong are arbitrary, or at least hold meaning in the context of the ethical/nonethical environment or system one is analyzing. It would be wrong for God to tell someone something is wrong(thou shalt not kill), then do it himself(pick any of a number of events, first born son slaughter in Pharoah's Egypt=genocide/infanticide) and claim he is doing it on your(the Jews, God's chosen people) behalf. It is a pot/kettle/black logical fallacy. To even be able to determine that action as wrong you would need to define every attribute of God (Omniscience?Omnipotence?Omnipresence?Supreme Benevolence?etc.). Then you would have to decide that he created man with free will to be able to perform Genocide on his fellow man. What are you trying to get at?Is God wrong for committing genocide against man, is man wrong for committing genocide against man? It is not possible to answer absolutely yes, genocide is wrong, or no it is not within the parameters of the question you have asked. I think this post is reaching or has reached a dead end without a clearly described question defining the nature of the variables in the equation and the nature of the equation.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
- Login to post comments
Offline
on March 27, 2008 - 5:52pm.
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Genocide makes sense when you are stupid , I mean human, .... how about mass suicide ??? Yeah , END evil ...... DIE ? KILL ?
WTF ?
I must admit, I AM, I have a difficult time following your posts.
______________________________________________
Yeah, often , me Gawed, too. I don't know what to call my writing style. It's often just what comes to mind, a reaction to so much non-sense I read. Sometimes like trying to reveal the non-sense with reverse non-sense, etc.
Some would say to call me / you god is nuts ..... But not when you are god, and have no master.
Above I was mocking genocide and war as being even possibly moral. I could however imagine a situation where it actually could be .....
All this is of course a huge philosophical dilemma, where none of the out comes are pleasant ..... just as all wars are the result of an error of some kind, in my opinion.
Again: End evil, kill yourself, and better yet, everyone else too, destroy the evil world ! ..... Help the world , start killing ...... Now let's have a moral discussion on this ! WTF ! WHY ?
- Login to post comments
Offline All you have demonstrated here is your personal ethical system and why genocide is wrong from your perspective. While I completely agree with you that genocide is terrible, this does not successfully demonstrate why atheists should be able to use genocide as an accusation against god. You submitted within the first paragraph that there are hundreds of ethical systems. Which is right? There are currently ethical systems which are fine with genocide (I think we are all well aware of that). This means that God's actions are okay in one system and evil in another. It is up to atheism to demonstrate a moral absolute, otherwise this particular charge against Christianity is unreasonable. It is unreasonable because God's actions are both good and bad.
First of all, moral relativism is rarely defended by any philosophy professor I've ever met, nor read. It's a fairly fringe view of ethics, something which I think does well in informing us, but ultimately not something useful to ethics in terms of determining right from wrong or determining what is the best in life.
While it's true there are hundreds of ethical systems out there, I'm not aware of any school of ethics out there currently which suggests genocide is ok. For that matter I'm not aware of lots of churches outside of a few fundy nutjobs (lots yes, but not compared to the 6.6 Billion people on the planet) who would say genocide is a perfectly acceptable moral option even if "God Says." I've heard the genocides described in the bible referred to as "victors write the stories" by conservative baptist preachers. Picking out one of the more obscure portions of the old testament (as far as most Christians are concerned) and using that as one's sole answer to Christianity is kind of pointless. The Doctrine of Original Sin, now there's something out of the old testament that actually needs defending.. it's one of the more evil and pernicious pieces of Dogma that pretty well all christians believe in, if they are educated enough to even be aware of it.
And even historically, lets look at when actual Genocides have taken place outside the ravings of whoever wrote those portions of the old testament:
At least in the 20th century, there were no schools of philosophy that encouraged directly the wholesale destruction of a race. The Nazis had to recruit fanatics in order to get people to work in the damn camps. Even some of the most senior SS men wrote of their horror at what they were doing in their diary.
The Armenians were killed by the Turks and the Turks denied and STILL are denying that it ever happened.
There was no system of ethics involved in Rwanda, any more than there is in Sudan or Yugoslavia.
At best these genocides (that's right I said AT BEST) can claim religious inspiration. Not that that's any kind of defense.
I am NOT a relativist. I am a child of the enlightenment. I DO believe one sort of thinking is superior to another and make no apologies for it. To make the claim that there is no moral difference between a society which stones to death women for not wearing a burka and one in which women have equal rights, or one which condones slavery over one that doesn't, seems silly on its face. And in the 21st century to really find that kind of thing, you need to go where the religion is a lot stronger than the education system.
Presumably man has evolved socially over the last 5,000 years, and we've learned to better grasp at things like ethics.
From a purely logical point of debate, what is it when God one one days pronounces "Thou shalt not commit murder" then the next declares "go in and kill every living thing?"
That's not a system of ethics, it's totally fucking arbitrary. And by ANY system of ethics, that's unethical because it's both totally impractical. (No one can live as a society where the rules are arbitrary) and self-contradictory.
So if you're specifically referring to the biblical references and why atheists (and I would not count myself necessarily in that label) object to them, I should think it's fairly self-evident. God setting standards, then randomly violating them or having you do so on his behalf is just bizarre and irrational.
It's why religion isn't ethics. "God says so" is not an ethically acceptable answer.
So again, unless one takes the most drastic moral relativist position on ethics, or one argues that there is no OBJECTIVE reason I can say genocide is wrong, because Objective reasons don't exist, I would say that the idea that genocide is OK because some magic person in the sky said to do it is inherently illogical and immoral. I gave you a couple of what most would consider rational reasons specifically why genocide is not morally permissible, and all you can respond with is all ethics are relative?
I don't know of any system which claims it's objective "Truth." Only religion does that. We're always limited by our own knowledge and development to make the best stab at it we can. But forcing someone to rationally justify their intentions rather than being able to say "God Says" is the best we're probably ever going to get. And yes, parts of that are always going to be subject to the society we live in and the progress the human race has made from its infancy.
Being open-minded isn't the same thing as being vacant.
- Login to post comments
Offline [ To even be able to determine that action as wrong you would need to define every attribute of God.
To be able to determine that action is wrong, you have to define what constitutes "right" or "wrong." The only thing that has been said is that 1) Genocide is wrong because it is wrong to murder. But what makes murder wrong? What if my ethical system justifies it? Then it is not wrong, and genocide cannot be wrong, let alone an argument which dismisses God for taking an evil action.
I mean, is genocide wrong because life inherently has value? Is it wrong because it involves the act of killing? And you are right. We are approaching 50 posts here and little new has been said. I am not intending to run in circles here, but I feel like the arguments presented are not establishing a sound argument. I cannot see the fundamental gauge of right and wrong according to materialism. Until I have that argument, I cannot accept that God's action was right or wrong, because it simply was (assuming it happened). Now, if an action can be demonstrated to be inherently bad, then we can argue against God's action. But without that, I am having difficulty.
Also, the point you raise about God's commandment not to kill is an interesting one. But that is a different argument. That speaks to God's right to contradict its own statements. And I would more than glad to dialogue over that in a different thread. But the specific variables of this equation involve establishing inherent good or bad. Otherwise, every evaluative statement regarding an action is potentially a contradiction. And please, feel free to duck out here if you feel this is too pointless. I would not see that as a concession by any means. I am truly not trying to exacerbate any body.
- Login to post comments
Offline
First of all, moral relativism is rarely defended by any philosophy professor I've ever met, nor read.
If they do not ascribe to moral relativism, then what is their standard for absolute (vs. arbitrary/subjective) ethic?
While it's true there are hundreds of ethical systems out there, I'm not aware of any school of ethics out there currently which suggests genocide is ok.
Okay! Now we're talking! And why is that? What stands behind that commonality that is shared by several different schools of ethics?
For that matter I'm not aware of lots of churches outside of a few fundy nutjobs (lots yes, but not compared to the 6.6 Billion people on the planet) who would say genocide is a perfectly acceptable moral option even if "God Says." I've heard the genocides described in the bible referred to as "victors write the stories" by conservative baptist preachers.
This is true. Quite honestly, this is one of the most difficult issues in Christianity/Biblical studies. Indeed, its been difficult since Marcion (early Christian heretic by orthodox standards)! But much of that has to do with the fact that Christians do have a moral absolute (whether right or wrong).
Picking out one of the more obscure portions of the old testament (as far as most Christians are concerned) and using that as one's sole answer to Christianity is kind of pointless. The Doctrine of Original Sin, now there's something out of the old testament that actually needs defending.. it's one of the more evil and pernicious pieces of Dogma that pretty well all christians believe in, if they are educated enough to even be aware of it.
Side note, but actually Original Sin has strong roots in New Testament Theology, just as a heads up (particularly Pauline statements of all having sinned through Adam)
At least in the 20th century, there were no schools of philosophy that encouraged directly the wholesale destruction of a race. The Nazis had to recruit fanatics in order to get people to work in the damn camps. Even some of the most senior SS men wrote of their horror at what they were doing in their diary.
The Armenians were killed by the Turks and the Turks denied and STILL are denying that it ever happened.
There was no system of ethics involved in Rwanda, any more than there is in Sudan or Yugoslavia.
You may be right in that there are not a whole lot formalized philosophical schools that justify genocide; however, culture is in many ways a philosophical system. And many of these cultures had adherents who could justify the death of an entire race within their cultural ethical system. And, while one could say it was because of religious beliefs, many would say racism and economical advantage are at the root of such conflicts and genocide (many Marxists, for example)
I am NOT a relativist. I am a child of the enlightenment. I DO believe one sort of thinking is superior to another and make no apologies for it. To make the claim that there is no moral difference between a society which stones to death women for not wearing a burka and one in which women have equal rights, or one which condones slavery over one that doesn't, seems silly on its face. And in the 21st century to really find that kind of thing, you need to go where the religion is a lot stronger than the education system.
Good. I am glad you are not. I am not a huge fan of it to be honest. So you are a child of the enlightenment. Fair enough (who isn't?!). You seem to be saying here then you believe in an absolute morality. Can you tell me the fundamental precepts of your enlightenment position then that make such claims you mentioned wrong? I assumed you value life. Good! But may I ask why? What lies at the heart of your valuing human life? You abhor murder. Good! Then let us define murder. I think we are getting somewhere here. You ascribe to an absolute system, now let us walk through that and demonstrate what the moral standards are and give legitimacy to the atheist argument God is evil for committing genocide! (no sarcasm here, truly. I am excited that someone has submitted an absolute position!)
From a purely logical point of debate, what is it when God one one days pronounces "Thou shalt not commit murder" then the next declares "go in and kill every living thing?"
This is an excellent question. But would be better discussed in a different thread. Zuess brought it up too. I will not answer it comprehensively here (indeed, I am not sure I could answer it totally anywhere!). But what if one could demonstrate that the genocide was not murder? Would it be wrong then? (and before calling it murder, we would have to create arguments for and against those statements)
That's not a system of ethics, it's totally fucking arbitrary. And by ANY system of ethics, that's unethical because it's both totally impractical. (No one can live as a society where the rules are arbitrary) and self-contradictory.
actually, if it was anything it probably was practical. Consider the position of the Israelites. They have no where to go. They do not live in a world saturated with Enlightenment ethics. It's not really like the Israelites walk up to the Philistines and say, "Hey, do you mind if we share land?" It is terribly dog eat dog. A long study of the ancient near east seems to support this. Therefore, it is practical to wipe out not just cities, but entire populations. After all, while it is preemptive to wipe out possible avengers, if anything it is practical.
Also, anybody can live in a society where the rules are arbitrary. In fact, many laws and rules in any society are arbitrary in the sense that they are not absolute. Laws are subject to change whenever the society deems it necessary or efficient (or a dictator changes them) to change them.
So if you're specifically referring to the biblical references and why atheists (and I would not count myself necessarily in that label)
If you are not a pure atheist or materialist, this may be part of the problem in our dialog. I am looking specifically for the materialist standard for right and wrong.
I gave you a couple of what most would consider rational reasons specifically why genocide is not morally permissible, and all you can respond with is all ethics are relative?
What are those points again?
I don't know of any system which claims it's objective "Truth."
Hmm. Materialism.
- Login to post comments
Offline You asked a question and have received several quite good answers.
If you're looking for objective "Truth" with a capital "T" then you will have to look elsewhere than ethics; it's all a matter of opinion when it comes down to it. BUT all ethics systems which are even worthy of the name HAVE to be based on rationality, which makes it a far better system than one which depends upon revealed truth from a God no one can prove exists.
I'm really not interested in repeating philosophy 101 with you. If you're serious about answers, I would strongly suggest your local community college or even a 4-year institution which will let you audit classes. you could even try reading some books on the subject on your own.
"If you are not a pure atheist or materialist, this may be part of the problem in our dialog. I am looking specifically for the materialist standard for right and wrong."
That wasn't the original question. And it wasn't the follow-up question either. Every time someone answers you, you change the tone of the question just enough to get them to answer you yet again, which is the hallmark of a troll.
Anyway, this is my last bite. Good luck, maybe someone else wants to play this game with you, but I surely don't.
Being open-minded isn't the same thing as being vacant.
- Login to post comments
Offline You asked a question and have received several quite good answers.
If you're looking for objective "Truth" with a capital "T" then you will have to look elsewhere than ethics; it's all a matter of opinion when it comes down to it. BUT all ethics systems which are even worthy of the name HAVE to be based on rationality, which makes it a far better system than one which depends upon revealed truth from a God no one can prove exists.
I'm really not interested in repeating philosophy 101 with you. If you're serious about answers, I would strongly suggest your local community college or even a 4-year institution which will let you audit classes. you could even try reading some books on the subject on your own.
"If you are not a pure atheist or materialist, this may be part of the problem in our dialog. I am looking specifically for the materialist standard for right and wrong."
That wasn't the original question. And it wasn't the follow-up question either. Every time someone answers you, you change the tone of the question just enough to get them to answer you yet again, which is the hallmark of a troll.
Anyway, this is my last bite. Good luck, maybe someone else wants to play this game with you, but I surely don't.
Jubal, I have become more specific per the request of other people in this thread. Indeed, I have become more specific as I have learned what I am more clearly asking. I never intentionally twisted the question around to get out of the issue. If it was perceived that way, that is unfortunate. I am sorry you feel I maintain the hallmarks of a troll.
Thank you for the statement that all ethics are matter of opinion. I am sorry the dialogue is over, but best of luck in the future.
- Login to post comments
Offline I extend an apology to you Jubal. There was a definite miscommunication here. You offered your explanation of why genocide was morally unacceptable based on the initial question. I was under the assumption you had read more of the thread and seen the expansions of the question. My bad. Justifiable frustration for sure. Again, apologies.
- Login to post comments
Offline Slimm wrote:Joe_Canon wrote:Slimm wrote:This has to be a trick question...
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.
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,
Slimm, I agree that it is an atrocious thing. It certainly conjures up strong emotions and causes me to be extremely perplexed.
But to your argument. The most essential thing I could pull out of this (and I really do appreciate the honesty here-- quite refreshing!) post was: You cannot justify putting an end to a being with consciousness. Is that right? If so, is it the "putting an end to" part that is difficult, or the fact that the beings have consciousness? If they do not have consciousness is it more acceptable? (I am inquiring, not accusing here)
It's more of the fact that the beings have consciousness. But then again, I have no problem stepping on a bug every now and then, and they have conscious minds too. This question boggles my mind when I try to construct a reason for my opinion, maybe this question is mostly based on beauty/feelings. I think it's impossible to Prove that genocide or killing is wrong. It would be like trying to prove to someone that broccoli in nasty.
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called Insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion." - Robert M. Pirsig,
- Login to post comments
Offline Why is genocide wrong?
Please be specific.
Genocide is wrong - murder in general is wrong - because we have, as a society, decided that it is. The short answer is that society has evolved through many stages to a point where we know as a whole that murder is bad. We have seen the effects of genocide, and now culturally have enough of a distaste for those effects to (hopefully) at least limit future genocides.
"But still I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me!" ~Rudyard Kipling
Mazid the Raider says: I'd rather face the naked truth than to go "augh, dude, put some clothes on or something" and hand him some God robes, cause you and I know that the naked truth is pale, hairy, and has an outie
Entomophila says: Ew. AN outie
- Login to post comments
Offline I am beginning to see some ground for dialogue here. God is evil because he ordered the killing of people groups. It is wrong to murder anybody, and these genocides involved murder. But I still feel I must pursue why murder is wrong. I would like to understand [your] ultimate moral standard.
From my perspective, "evil" is farther than I would ever take it. First of all, since I don't believe that any gods exist, it seems more likely that people are convincing each other that it's okay to do things that they'd do anyway. So a sociopath can get lots of people into the idea of killing Jews in Germany or Tutsis in Rwanda, and there's something about groups that they can be led to mass killing. These are things that people do, and they're horrible. We like to say "evil" to characterize a special force or entity that changes people to make them do horrible things. The truth is that we do these things, whether we believe it or not.
But adding the "God said so" rationalization is so weird for the Judeo-Christian God, given that murder is one of the big ten sins. You have to admit, it's pretty strange.
For me, personally, it's a difficult question. I'm often forced to look at external references for "moral" rules, since different groups make up different standards with regards to killing. For instance, it's perfectly okay for me to murder someone in combat, apparently, if we're talking about North American culture. In fact, it's just "doing your job" if you're a soldier. If you don't do that, then you're letting everyone down. But if I were to just pick some random person from my own country and kill them, then I'm a murderer. That's the practical social application of "murder".
If you're asking the ethical question rather than the practical one, I don't think nationalism really solves the ethical problem. Going to full-scale war is a kind of genocide. When a nation decides to go after and kill the young men of another nation with its own young men, that's genocide. What's wrong is to lie and tell those young men that they're dying in defense of the motherland when they're really being chucked into hell for the political gains of greedier, older men than they.
To then say "God said so" is so much more abhorrent, given that the older, greedier men know what they're doing. No "ultimate moral standard" helps anyone in all of this. If you can see how awful it is to kill massive amounts of people, it doesn't matter if it's "wrong" or "right" looking down from an ivory tower. It's human behaviour, and it's so much more complicated and terrifying than right or wrong.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline It's a very terrible thing. It is hard for me to comprehend genocide at all, let alone God's sanctioning of such action. This will probably be an issue I wrestle with until the day I die or dismiss my faith.
What I really wanted to bring out in this thread though was the complexity of the issue itself in the specific argument that God is wrong to sanction it. People throw that around all that time and I wanted to know why. I mean, i understand people think its wrong and abhor it, but I wanted to pursue the logical argument more than the intuitive or emotional response we have because we're so conditioned to value all life. I wanted to know the basis for our value of life. In Christianity, it's a difficult thing, because one respects life precisely because of the morality and humility demonstrated through the Christ story. This makes it perplexing to analyze the Old Testament. (again, this was an issue even in the first 4 centuries of Christianity) But in materialism I cannot yet clearly see why it would be wrong other than from a cultural standard.
I guess in many ways this whole discussion hits an impasse. People have a difficult time constructing logical arguments against it; and people have an equally difficult time justifying it. I feel stuck because intuitively I am against it, but by reasoning or rationality (that which I have currently, I hope to grow in this, however) I cannot explain why it's wrong. Thanks for the dialogue though and exploring the issue.
p.s. This was more of a reflection on the problem as I am dealing with it than a direct reply to your post. If you want a more direct response, please let me know. I don't want to be misconstrued as a troll.
- Login to post comments
Offline I also note you would not qualify it as "evil" (per your first sentence). Wrong I assume, but not evil. I observe this qualification.
- Login to post comments
Offline Why is genocide wrong?
Please be specific.
Because it is not a stable ESS.
- Login to post comments
Offline What I really wanted to bring out in this thread though was the complexity of the issue itself in the specific argument that God is wrong to sanction it.
It's much easier to condemn the sanctioning of the activity than of the activity itself. If someone (in this case God) orders the destruction of Jericho, man, woman and child, that's ... sick. That's not about the soldiers in a war or self-defense, or anything where the reasoning gets blurred. If it's the God part you're confused about, any entity that would decide to arbitrarily chose a group of people and crush everyone else is not just sociopathic, but sadistic. An omnipotent being could have made sure, for instance, that the inhabitants of Jericho were never born. That would have saved them the terror of being slaughtered.
God didn't just "go along with it", Joshua acts on God's orders to slaughter. If I heard an external voice that nobody else could hear that told me to kill, I would know, without a shadow of doubt, that I was emotionally troubled and needed to be locked up. I would be the first to suggest a straight jacket. Psychosis would be the most reasonable explanation. Joshua, however, had supernatural permission to literally bathe in blood. An entire city's inhabitants wiped out. That's the Judeo-Christian story of God's justice.
If a general ordered the same thing, I would think them sadistic and sociopathic.
I mean, i understand people think its wrong and abhor it, but I wanted to pursue the logical argument more than the intuitive or emotional response we have because we're so conditioned to value all life.
I would argue that's innate. Nobody has ever told me to recoil in horror at violent death, but even seeing it in movies is jarring. In real life, it's completely traumatizing. There's no reason to assume that conditioning would produce that response, since there's no way to train that into someone.
I wanted to know the basis for our value of life.
You're right to say it's cultural, to a certain extent. But culture (ie anything learned) is only partially responsible for our behaviour.
In Christianity, it's a difficult thing, because one respects life precisely because of the morality and humility demonstrated through the Christ story.
You may be extrapolating. It's true that Christian cultures value life, but that value is strictly secondary. The idea of "no man left behind" isn't really Christian, unless you really twist the story of the prodigal son to suit that purpose. But it persists in North American culture because it appeals to us beyond Christian teachings. We are moral creatures, regardless of the religion we in which we find ourselves surrounded.
But in materialism I cannot yet clearly see why it would be wrong other than from a cultural standard.
The problem here is that materialism doesn't really deal with the normative, but with the positive. So even if I'm a materialist, I wouldn't necessarily be a materialist with regards to genocide, in the sense that I wouldn't be a carpenter with regards to plumbing. The approach doesn't match the problem.
People have a difficult time constructing logical arguments against it, and people have an equally difficult time justifying it. I feel stuck because intuitively I am against it, but by reasoning or rationality (that which I have currently, I hope to grow in this, however) I cannot explain why it's wrong.
Intuition in this case is superior to logical manipulation of absolutes. The emotional reaction is actually more useful in this case, as the emotional reaction is the consequence of killing (at least for someone who isn't a sociopath). Even a total narcissist should consider that they, themselves, will be haunted emotionally by the death of another person (much less a group). But logic may not arrive at a satisfactory answer, where your intution guides you to very real laws and ordinances that work well.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline If an Alien landed and brought a super duper fast mind boggling unstoppable killing disease, would nuking the area be genocide ? Well I think not, by the way we currently use the word .....
geezzz, a bit scary and painful life can indeed be said a buddha ....
- Login to post comments
Offline Joe_Canon wrote:What I really wanted to bring out in this thread though was the complexity of the issue itself in the specific argument that God is wrong to sanction it.It's much easier to condemn the sanctioning of the activity than of the activity itself. If someone (in this case God) orders the destruction of Jericho, man, woman and child, that's ... sick. That's not about the soldiers in a war or self-defense, or anything where the reasoning gets blurred. If it's the God part you're confused about, any entity that would decide to arbitrarily chose a group of people and crush everyone else is not just sociopathic, but sadistic. An omnipotent being could have made sure, for instance, that the inhabitants of Jericho were never born. That would have saved them the terror of being slaughtered.
God didn't just "go along with it", Joshua acts on God's orders to slaughter. If I heard an external voice that nobody else could hear that told me to kill, I would know, without a shadow of doubt, that I was emotionally troubled and needed to be locked up. I would be the first to suggest a straight jacket. Psychosis would be the most reasonable explanation. Joshua, however, had supernatural permission to literally bathe in blood. An entire city's inhabitants wiped out. That's the Judeo-Christian story of God's justice.
If a general ordered the same thing, I would think them sadistic and sociopathic.
Joe_Canon wrote:I mean, i understand people think its wrong and abhor it, but I wanted to pursue the logical argument more than the intuitive or emotional response we have because we're so conditioned to value all life.I would argue that's innate. Nobody has ever told me to recoil in horror at violent death, but even seeing it in movies is jarring. In real life, it's completely traumatizing. There's no reason to assume that conditioning would produce that response, since there's no way to train that into someone.
Joe_Canon wrote:I wanted to know the basis for our value of life.You're right to say it's cultural, to a certain extent. But culture (ie anything learned) is only partially responsible for our behaviour.
Joe_Canon wrote:In Christianity, it's a difficult thing, because one respects life precisely because of the morality and humility demonstrated through the Christ story.You may be extrapolating. It's true that Christian cultures value life, but that value is strictly secondary. The idea of "no man left behind" isn't really Christian, unless you really twist the story of the prodigal son to suit that purpose. But it persists in North American culture because it appeals to us beyond Christian teachings. We are moral creatures, regardless of the religion we in which we find ourselves surrounded.
Joe_Canon wrote:But in materialism I cannot yet clearly see why it would be wrong other than from a cultural standard.The problem here is that materialism doesn't really deal with the normative, but with the positive. So even if I'm a materialist, I wouldn't necessarily be a materialist with regards to genocide, in the sense that I wouldn't be a carpenter with regards to plumbing. The approach doesn't match the problem.
Joe_Canon wrote:People have a difficult time constructing logical arguments against it, and people have an equally difficult time justifying it. I feel stuck because intuitively I am against it, but by reasoning or rationality (that which I have currently, I hope to grow in this, however) I cannot explain why it's wrong.Intuition in this case is superior to logical manipulation of absolutes. The emotional reaction is actually more useful in this case, as the emotional reaction is the consequence of killing (at least for someone who isn't a sociopath). Even a total narcissist should consider that they, themselves, will be haunted emotionally by the death of another person (much less a group). But logic may not arrive at a satisfactory answer, where your intution guides you to very real laws and ordinances that work well.
This entire thread can probably best be examined over in Hamby's thread on "morality for dummies."
But to dialogue a few points here. In the case of God, Joshua, and the genocide, the narrative makes sense. First of all, the genocides are not arbitrary as the Israelites run the risk of being crushed by rival groups (survival of the fittest). Also, that these cultures are not culpable of anything morally bad is another question. Many of them regularly practiced child sacrifice. Pleasant people? I am thinking not (whether that warrants the ENTIRE group being wiped out is a harder question. That seems more pragmatic than anything). Also, it only presumably be murder if these people were innocent on some absolute standard (whether from a genetic argument or philosophic). And, according to the story, Joshua did not just hear a voice in his head. He had apparently lived in a culture where the entire people group was guarded by a giant pillar of fire by night and a pillar of smoke by day. If a being existed like this that could also apparently part entire seas asked you to do something, would you really say no? Could you look an entity in the face like that and disagree?
Regarding God's omniscience and omnipotence. One need look no further than the Bible to realize that God has always limited its power and knowledge to work within humanity rather than apart from it. This may be miles away from dogmatic theology, but limited power runs from cover to cover, so impotence in this case is really a misunderstanding of God's omnipotence and how it presumably interacts with humanity.
Reaction to death and violence are highly cultural. If you were conditioned in a society that frequently saw death and genocide, you would not react nearly as strongly or even at all to such activity. However, assuming the intuitive approach. Where does one draw the line between rational approach to life and intuitive? My intuition leads me towards religion. Why is this intuition wrong but the intuition against genocide is right?
- Login to post comments
Offline Why is genocide wrong?
Please be specific.
Because it dulls the thrill of hurting specific people.
- Login to post comments
Offline Because it dulls the thrill of hurting specific people.
Sadly... that is the best arguement i have EVER heard against genocide...
What Would Kharn Do?
- Login to post comments
Offline But to dialogue a few points here. In the case of God, Joshua, and the genocide, the narrative makes sense. First of all, the genocides are not arbitrary as the Israelites run the risk of being crushed by rival groups (survival of the fittest). Also, that these cultures are not culpable of anything morally bad is another question. Many of them regularly practiced child sacrifice. Pleasant people? I am thinking not (whether that warrants the ENTIRE group being wiped out is a harder question. That seems more pragmatic than anything). Also, it only presumably be murder if these people were innocent on some absolute standard (whether from a genetic argument or philosophic).
You'll excuse me if I don't find your rationalization compelling. Since joining this site, I've read the old testament story of Joshua, and the story goes that the Isrealites were slaughtering towns as they found them. Man, woman, child and cattle. Everyone they encountered was terrified of them, to the point where they tried to trick Joshua into signing a treaty pretending to be someone else. Were those people a threat? No - they enslaved them! Besides, the only account we have of their behaviour is the biblical one, written by the winners. "Oh, they're bad people, and God said we should slaughter them." C'mon. It's not only murder if someone's "innocent". It's murder when a person kills another person on purpose. They systematically slaughtered and enslaved entire cities, and wrote it down as an object lesson. What does that teach, that God encourages the cruelty of demagogues?
And, according to the story, Joshua did not just hear a voice in his head. He had apparently lived in a culture where the entire people group was guarded by a giant pillar of fire by night and a pillar of smoke by day. If a being existed like this that could also apparently part entire seas asked you to do something, would you really say no? Could you look an entity in the face like that and disagree?
That's a big "if". IF there were a giant pillar of fire by night, and IF there were a giant pillar of smoke by day. If I told you that I had one of those pillars of fire, how crazy would you think I was?
Regarding God's omniscience and omnipotence. One need look no further than the Bible to realize that God has always limited its power and knowledge to work within humanity rather than apart from it. This may be miles away from dogmatic theology, but limited power runs from cover to cover, so impotence in this case is really a misunderstanding of God's omnipotence and how it presumably interacts with humanity.
I'd rather not go down the omnipotence road, if that's okay. It's a bit tired. The arguments are all old there, and they all start with the assumption of God, which is about as appealing as Plato's argument over whether it was better to be "perfectly moral" or "perfectly immoral". It's like arguing whether it's better to be the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, and it's about as productive.
Reaction to death and violence are highly cultural. If you were conditioned in a society that frequently saw death and genocide, you would not react nearly as strongly or even at all to such activity.
Desinsitization isn't the same as approval. If you were in such a country, you'd rather be in Canada. I've met hundreds of people who feel that way. They were brought up in countries where violence is the norm, and despite the cultural divide, they're just happy to be somewhere you can go home and relax. Toronto is boring as hell, and the people who like that the most are former refugees. Morality of that kind is independent of culture and nationality.
However, assuming the intuitive approach. Where does one draw the line between rational approach to life and intuitive? My intuition leads me towards religion. Why is this intuition wrong but the intuition against genocide is right?
You're still thinking in black and white. Saying "irrational" isn't saying "bad". Knowing when you're being rational and when you're being irrational is just a skill. When you fall in love with someone, you're not being rational, but that doesn't make your behaviour bad. It's just behaviour. Most people pick a car irrationally. It looks good, or it appeals to your nostalgia. That's not "bad", it's just irrational. There's really nothing wrong with irrationality itself, just its application. If you end up spending too much money on a car simply because you were led down the nostalgic path by a clever car salesman, that's not very helpful to you.
If your intuition leads you towards religion, that's not "bad". If you know that your religious beliefs are irrational (like falling in love) then you might not base practical decisions on them, like voting for someone just because they're Christian. But you'd be in the minority. Most people who have irrational beliefs will defend them as rational when they're not. And they'll consider voting for that Christian totally rational. Again, that's not bad in and of itself, it's just not rational.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline
You're still thinking in black and white. Saying "irrational" isn't saying "bad". Knowing when you're being rational and when you're being irrational is just a skill. When you fall in love with someone, you're not being rational, but that doesn't make your behaviour bad. It's just behaviour. Most people pick a car irrationally. It looks good, or it appeals to your nostalgia. That's not "bad", it's just irrational. There's really nothing wrong with irrationality itself, just its application. If you end up spending too much money on a car simply because you were led down the nostalgic path by a clever car salesman, that's not very helpful to you.
If your intuition leads you towards religion, that's not "bad". If you know that your religious beliefs are irrational (like falling in love) then you might not base practical decisions on them, like voting for someone just because they're Christian. But you'd be in the minority. Most people who have irrational beliefs will defend them as rational when they're not. And they'll consider voting for that Christian totally rational. Again, that's not bad in and of itself, it's just not rational.
I agree completely. HisWill.
That's about the most succinct, sensible description of the difference between rational and irrational I've heard in some time. Not everyone turns into a christian, much less a fundy wackjob. I may be predisposed to have fantasies about a God, I may even meditate on the subject. But I'm sure as hell not going to base any decisions on it. Call it mental masturbation, but that's fine, masturbation feels good sometimes too:P
Being open-minded isn't the same thing as being vacant.
- Login to post comments
Offline The goal of humanity is to survive and replicate. The best way to do that is to group together into a society (safety in numbers) and to have a society, you need a set of rules, including laws as well as social norms. Morality is that set of rules, and from it comes our laws and our social norms. Murder itself is counted as immoral and illegal. Murder is wrong because it harms the species' chance at longterm survival by eliminating a useful, or potentially useful member of society. Genocide is a lot of murder. If it's a genocide of people outside of your society, it still harms your society. How? Retaliatory attacks, of course, as well as moral indignation of those who live in the offending society leading to a breakdown of society. So, yes, genocide is wrong.
- Login to post comments
Offline
That these cultures are not culpable of anything morally bad is another question. Many of them regularly practiced child sacrifice.
Yes, it made perfect moral sense for God to indicate his disapproval of infanticide by sending his "Chosen People" to invade the pagan cities and kill their babies, as well. 
Kind of like showing your disapproval of alcoholism by going out and getting drunk.
- Login to post comments
Offline Genocide is bad for our health
- Where people carrying out genocide are oppressors
- Where during the course of genocide people get angry
- Where angry people often become violent toward the oppressive
- Where violence toward oppressors often leads to injury to oppressors
- It is sufficient that oppressors commit genocide for people become violent
- It is sufficient that oppressors commit genocide for injury to oppressors to occur
- If people value their health then they should not become oppressors by committing genocide
Genocide is bad for science
- Where genocide is the destruction of a group of people with a common character trait
- Where culture infers the possibility of innovation and/or scientific gain from social interaction under a given pretext
- It is sufficient that any group sharing a common trait would also share a culture
- Elimination of a group of people with a common character trait effectively eliminates that culture (from 1 and 3)
- Elimination of a culture effectively eliminates the possibility of innovation and/or scientific gain from social interaction under a given pretext (from 2 and 4)
- If we value innovation and/or scientific gain then we must not commit genocide
Slavery is better than genocide
- Where every healthy person is capable of performing manual labor
- Where people are a renewable resource
- Problem: there is a shortage of manual labor
- Genocide necessitates the destruction of a group of healthy people capable of performing manual labor
- People can be worked to death and there will always be more unless you kill them all
- If we value manual labor then we must not commit genocide
Slavery is bad because science is better
- Where slaves are usually unhappy
- Where unhappy people sometimes revolt against those that make them so
- Where revolution usually leads to scientific backtracking
- It is a sufficient condition for revolution that there are slaves (from 1 and 2)
- It is a sufficient condition for scientific backtracking that there are slaves
- If we value science we should not enslave people
Cultural conquest is better
- Where conquest alters the culture of a given group of people
- Where some cultures inhibit innovation and/or scientific gain
- Where not inhibiting innovation and/or scientific gain is promoting it
- It is possible to commit cultural conquest without violence
- It is unnecessary to commit genocide to promote innovation and/or scientific gain
- If we value innovation and/or scientific gain then it is better to incorporate cultures than to eradicate them
I could establish these a lot better, but I think you get the point. Also, I'm not running short on arguments as to why genocide is a bad idea.
- Login to post comments
Offline I am afraid I must balk at those last six items as they sound awfully ethnocentric.
What I should have asked originally (as was pointed out well by Basileo) is: what ultimate ethic does materialism provide? What standards does it adhere to whereby it might call an act of genocide wrong? I ask this because much of the morality in materialism (and maybe some people will not agree with this) stems from Christian principles (at least, generally). Things such as altruism, humility, etc. are firmly grounded as Christian principles. What I am wondering is how materialism distances itself from this and creates a new ground for ethics.
However, I do believe Hamby spelled this out in another string.
p.s. It is arguable that genocide is good as it creates better chances for the genes of a specific group to proliferate. It also can act to secure resources, diminish threat of a nearby hateful neighbor, increase one's influence in a geographic region serving to benefit a culture, etc. I am not a supporter of it, but one could argue it has benefits.
- Login to post comments
Offline Before I give you the answer you're looking for(based on facts), let me ask you your religious affiliation(theist/atheist?).
- Login to post comments
Offline I finished reading the thread(wipes brow) and Ben hit on the idea.
The goal of humanity is to survive and replicate. The best way to do that is to group together into a society (safety in numbers) and to have a society, you need a set of rules, including laws as well as social norms. Morality is that set of rules, and from it comes our laws and our social norms. Murder itself is counted as immoral and illegal. Murder is wrong because it harms the species' chance at longterm survival by eliminating a useful, or potentially useful member of society. Genocide is a lot of murder. If it's a genocide of people outside of your society, it still harms your society. How? Retaliatory attacks, of course, as well as moral indignation of those who live in the offending society leading to a breakdown of society. So, yes, genocide is wrong.
I'll try to expand on it. Every species' top priority is to survive in order to procreate. The idea of killing or reducing the chance of survival goes against the very nature of early humans with a scarcer population. As humans(with our superior intelligence) we are able to understand(somewhat) the instinctive need to survive to procreate, or at least that it is necessary. We came up with rules that were meant to increase our odds. It probably began with murder, then maybe thieves were being killed and so eventually all deeds that warranted or provoked murder by the victim(s) were considered criminal. Ironically enough, these rules/law probably came into practice completely independent of religion. Murder, especially genocide, is condemned because it is not in the best interest of our species. It's a crime against nature.
Here is an interesting perspective....
- Login to post comments
Offline You're welcome
- Login to post comments
Offline I wouldnt say anything is right or wrong really.
I think Right/Wrong are all based on perspective, there is no universal rights or wrongs.
I mean, if you do something with "good" intention (you think you are helping someone) does that make it right? I wouldnt think so.
I think the base of this discussion shouldnt be about murder/genocide it should be about what is right vs. what is wrong.
But to answer you ? as best I can. Murder is wrong because of the social contract that allows us to live without constant stress about being attacked. You dont kill me and I wont kill you. It is a win-win situation. If someone breaks that contract at least one of the two is going to be the loser. So it is better for all parties involved to follow the social contract.
Genocide is the same idea on a larger scale. Instead of individuals we are dealing with groups but the whole arguement still applies.
But I dont think this makes murder wrong, I think at best would could say it is unbeneficial.
---Case for genocide---
The early Americas, what if the Native Americans rose up early to the European threat and made it their goal to "whip out all Europeans that invade our land". By definition that would be genocide. Would that have been wrong of them? I guess you could argue that is self defense...but not really, they could have just moved further west right? You could argue they were protecting their land/property. That is sticky because most genocides are commited using the same arguement...Nazi's used it by saying the Jews moved in and usurped finacial power in Germany and it was used in Rwanda because population spikes made it impossible for the land to support everyone.
As a side note....
I dont know any Genocides where someone went out of their way to kill a group that were not competing for resourses. If there is one let me know.
"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta
- Login to post comments
Offline Good points, iluvc2h5oh ....
Ultimately we must learn to share, to love, other wise War , Murder, Greed, Unnecessary suffering will continue ..... A simple yet misunderstood question is, "When is love , in our dimension, not the answer ???? I can't find one .... as I will even kill if I must, anything that is destructive, in the spirit (law) of LOVE, protecting all life ....
To stretch the question, as to say Die HIV. This is a really complicated issue .... By killing all parasites, diseases, etc, do we become more "vulnerable" to the next evolutionary biological menace ? ..... Seems we will always be at war with something, but why each other, over "resources". Is there any good reason that so many people starve, and suffer war ? How many can this nearly empty planet feed? I think the problem of over breading will take care of it self as we evolve and become more educated, connected, and simply wiser. Let's fix the NOW ..... "eat the rich" ..... ( no more rich, designers of war )
- Login to post comments
Offline Or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The only thing I don't like about the UDHR is that it doesn't take the form of a well-ordered proof, and I think that's what he's looking for here.
- Login to post comments
Offline The OP seems like a theist troll operating under the delusion that atheists have "no morals" and therefore don't oppose genocide. Just ignore him.
- Login to post comments
Offline What I should have asked originally (as was pointed out well by Basileo) is: what ultimate ethic does materialism provide? What standards does it adhere to whereby it might call an act of genocide wrong? I ask this because much of the morality in materialism (and maybe some people will not agree with this) stems from Christian principles (at least, generally). Things such as altruism, humility, etc. are firmly grounded as Christian principles. What I am wondering is how materialism distances itself from this and creates a new ground for ethics.
Why does it have to be ultimate? Can it not be a constantly updating self correcting thing?
I kind of see morals has as test for making a society work. If a society makes some sort of moral code that fails the society will fail or it will decrease the stability of the society. If however it makes something that succeeds then the society will continue to grow and flourish. Why is society important, well it isn't unless you have the survival instinct and the ability to understand that many is greater than one. Those principals were around before Christianity. If they were not how did people survive before it?
p.s. It is arguable that genocide is good as it creates better chances for the genes of a specific group to proliferate. It also can act to secure resources, diminish threat of a nearby hateful neighbor, increase one's influence in a geographic region serving to benefit a culture, etc. I am not a supporter of it, but one could argue it has benefits.
Didn't Hitler try that? Seems like the other societies ended that. Didn't that make war happen against him and eventually causing his society to fail?
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
- Login to post comments
Offline Slimm wrote:This has to be a trick question...
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 moral standard used by rationalism/atheism to declare all things good or bad."
Just think about that for a second.... We could pick apart that statement for hours. There are no absolute truths, things are not black and white, and "all things" cannot be summarized as merely good or bad. Every rationalist/atheist if they are even the same would give you a different answer. There is no atheist bible, we can't quote scripture, we think as individuals. We come in peace.
- Login to post comments
Offline I am afraid I must balk at those last six items as they sound awfully ethnocentric.
Not sure what you mean. Culture is not the same as ethnicity. For example, there is internet culture versus television culture. American culture (the continent, not the United States) versus European culture. Eastern culture versus Western culture. Earth culture versus Martian Culture. Ethnicity usually refers to "Irish," "Jewish," "Japanese," etc., and while there are ethnic cultures it would be an act of stereotyping and possibly even racist to say that all ethnically African people are culturally African.
What I should have asked originally (as was pointed out well by Basileo) is: what ultimate ethic does materialism provide?
Ethics may be derived from materialism based on a series of simple axioms.
- There exists only things which we can observe somehow, such as the wind blowing through hair or an electron delivering a negative charge to a plate.
- All that a person is composed of is material. Damage that structure and you damage that person.
- All that a person really possesses is their material life.
- People need other people to live a worthwhile life.
Stemming directly from these several general rules can be extrapolated.
- Acting on false information (things which we cannot observe since they do not affect us) is unwise as it endangers axioms 2 through 4.
- Personal damage causes people to react in ways detrimental to others, particularly to the damager.
- A loss of life is a great loss indeed, since it is the only thing we can definitely say is valuable to a person.
- The loss of multiple lives is an even greater loss as it conflicts with every other individual's well being.
What standards does it adhere to whereby it might call an act of genocide wrong?
Materialism is not a system of ethics, much like car repair is not a system of ethics. However, like any system ethics may be derived from it. All materialism states is that the only thing that can be proven to exist is that which we can observe. The opposite of materialism is idealism, which is the philosophy that reality is contingent to some degree on a thinking being (such as a god). Neither of these philosophies explicitly state ethical guidelines.
I ask this because much of the morality in materialism (and maybe some people will not agree with this) stems from Christian principles (at least, generally). Things such as altruism, humility, etc. are firmly grounded as Christian principles. What I am wondering is how materialism distances itself from this and creates a new ground for ethics.
The furthest back I know of, formal ethical philosophy predates Christianity by at least 600 years. I'm sure someone will correct me on that. If you really want to know where most materialists get their ethics from you'll need to start with Plato and work your way up through the other ancient philosophers.
However, I do believe Hamby spelled this out in another string.
p.s. It is arguable that genocide is good as it creates better chances for the genes of a specific group to proliferate. It also can act to secure resources, diminish threat of a nearby hateful neighbor, increase one's influence in a geographic region serving to benefit a culture, etc. I am not a supporter of it, but one could argue it has benefits.
Arguable perhaps in the short term, but a simple inductive proof would show that it is untenable in any multinational society. As a rule, if one group of people kills another group of people all the other groups of people become afraid that the murderous group will come after them. Then it's only a matter of who strikes first. And that's how wars used to start.
- Login to post comments
Offline I AM going to the bar, while them others go to war ..... but I care, so I will help as can ......... I'll be at the bar .....
- Login to post comments
Offline Pantera Revolution is my name
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzh8j2qF-WY
are you pissed YET ?????
WAKE UP
WHAT IS MY NAME
G O D
*
*
*
- Login to post comments
Basileo, I have to admit, I am hitting my wits end with this kind of thing. Citing examples of God's actions and then calling them bad is, at best, a poor argument.
And, let the record show AGAIN, I do not support genocide. I am pursuing the logic behind: God is bad because of Genocide.
I am beginning to see some ground for dialogue here. God is evil because he ordered the killing of people groups. It is wrong to murder anybody, and these genocides involved murder. But I still feel I must pursue why murder is wrong. I would like to understand you're ultimate moral standard.
Slimm, I agree that it is an atrocious thing. It certainly conjures up strong emotions and causes me to be extremely perplexed.
But to your argument. The most essential thing I could pull out of this (and I really do appreciate the honesty here-- quite refreshing!) post was: You cannot justify putting an end to a being with consciousness. Is that right? If so, is it the "putting an end to" part that is difficult, or the fact that the beings have consciousness? If they do not have consciousness is it more acceptable? (I am inquiring, not accusing here)
Doomed, for you then it is culturally wrong. In your culture genocide is wrong; therefore, God was wrong to commission it? There is no absolute here. If it is wrong in this culture but acceptable in another culture's ethical schema, then we are at an impasse. God is both right and wrong. I am afraid I cannot accept moral relativity as a valid premise for evaluating God's actions.
Jubal, I do not condone genocide, but I want to know why it is wrong for God to order it. This is a frequent atheist argument; I am well within the boundaries of critical thinking to question the validity of this argument, I feel.
hold the phones. Moral relativism?
All you have demonstrated here is your personal ethical system and why genocide is wrong from your perspective. While I completely agree with you that genocide is terrible, this does not successfully demonstrate why atheists should be able to use genocide as an accusation against god. You submitted within the first paragraph that there are hundreds of ethical systems. Which is right? There are currently ethical systems which are fine with genocide (I think we are all well aware of that). This means that God's actions are okay in one system and evil in another. It is up to atheism to demonstrate a moral absolute, otherwise this particular charge against Christianity is unreasonable. It is unreasonable because God's actions are both good and bad.
Does this conclusion really follow from the premises?
1. Genocide is wrong according to my ethical system
2. Therefore, your question is backwards.
I do not need the feel to respond to the logic of this last particular argument. If you feel otherwise, please let me know and on what grounds.
And, by the way, how is a question "unethical"? as you state in your last paragraph?