Is genocide ok if God tells you to do it?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Or it's war depending on the context in which it is done.

They're not mutually exclusive things. War can be genocidal. If a people is wiped out, then genocide has occurred. If the mechanism for genocide was war, this doesn't negate the fact that there was a genocide.

OK. If you wish to differentiate between murder and killing, fine. I see it more as "Do not take life, unless life needs to be taken."

Except it's not phrased that way in the Bible. The commandment is "do not murder". It's not "don't take life... unless life needs to be taken".

We should feel bad about the loss of human life, not about following the will of God. If the will of God means the loss of human life, then that means we should mourn the loss and yet obey what God tells us to do. The two, the loss of life and the will of God are two separate things.

Why would you mourn the loss of life? If the act was commanded by God, then isn't the result greater or better than what would've happened otherwise? If you really had no other choice, then there's nothing to mourn in the killing of one enemy to save ten friends, or the killing of a hundred enemies to save your town. The only other option open to you would have resulted in even greater loss of life. The greater good was satisfied, God's command was followed and life was protected as much as possible. In all that, what elicits anything other than joy if you really believe it?

 

[TheKnight]

They're not mutually exclusive things. War can be genocidal. If a people is wiped out, then genocide has occurred. If the mechanism for genocide was war, this doesn't negate the fact that there was a genocide.

But can we say that the wiping out of the people was the result of genocide, or of war?

Except it's not phrased that way in the Bible. The commandment is "do not murder". It's not "don't take life... unless life needs to be taken".

This is true. However, conceptually , the idea of murder and the loss of life is that life should not be taken. In fact, life should be preserved wherever possible. However, there are also circumstances in which life must be taken. We may use different terms for the different situations in which life is lost. However, I see the loss of life as the loss of life. Period. Loss of life is always terrible, however the situation in which it occurs will determine the morality of it.

Why would you mourn the loss of life?

Because loss of life is a terrible thing.
I certainly hope I'd never feel good about the loss of life.

If the act was commanded by God, then isn't the result greater or better than what would've happened otherwise?

That doesn't mean I should be happy that the person's life was lost.

If you really had no other choice, then there's nothing to mourn in the killing of one enemy to save ten friends, or the killing of a hundred enemies to save your town. The only other option open to you would have resulted in even greater loss of life. The greater good was satisfied, God's command was followed and life was protected as much as possible. In all that, what elicits anything other than joy if you really believe it?

But see, in the Jewish moral system, one should not rejoice that their enemies had died.

We are taught that the angels rejoiced, when the Egyptian soldiers were drowning in the Reed Sea. But God chastised them, reminding the angels that even the oppressors of the Jewish people are God’s children.

From this we learn that even if the death of a person was for a good cause, and even if it was necessary for a greater good, one should not rejoice. To do so would be arrogant. After all, the death of that person is still a human life that God took the time to form. That person had a family, a life, a home, a country to defend, etc etc etc.

So while it may be necessary to take someone's life, we should never feel good about it. For even that person is a creation of God.

 

[averageJOE]

TheKnight,

You can't seem to understand the difference between war and genocide. In fact, you seem to think there is no such thing as genocide, only war. (When Hitler murdered millions of Jews in those camps that was not genocide, it was war.) Believe that if you want that doesn't matter.

I have another question for you...

You say something to the effect that genocide (or war if you prefer to call it that) is moral if God commands it. That one should not be afraid to act on genocide if God tells one to. Something to that affect right?

Well, what would you say if someone made that claim TODAY? What if some guy said that God told him to round up all the Hispanic men, women, and children in America and kill them. What if he was really convincing about God speaking to him, had some type of "proof" even, and actually got thousands of people to believe him? One you be one of those people? Would you help them round up all the Hispanic men, women, and children? Would you maintain your stance and say what he is doing is moral and just because it was God's commandment?

Or would you say "This guy is crazy and should be locked up in a mental hospital"?

 

[TheKnight]

Well, what would you say if someone made that claim TODAY? What if some guy said that God told him to round up all the Hispanic men, women, and children in America and kill them. What if he was really convincing about God speaking to him, had some type of "proof" even, and actually got thousands of people to believe him? One you be one of those people? Would you help them round up all the Hispanic men, women, and children? Would you maintain your stance and say what he is doing is moral and just because it was God's commandment?

Or would you say "This guy is crazy and should be locked up in a mental hospital"?

He would have to prove that God commanded it. You see, the Jews were commanded to go to war with certain nations only after God had delivered them from Egypt, revealed Himself to 3 million Jews and established Moses as His prophet before these 3 million people.

The only way I would believe this guy is if something equal to or greater than the events found in Exodus happened. Anything less wouldn't be satisfactory.

Not only that, but I would fight against him in every way possible for the crimes he would be committing against humanity.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

More interesting is the extent to which Autodidact and TheKnight feed off of each other. It does a real disservice to theology and theodicy alike.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It does a real disservice to theology and theodicy alike.

Oh, what a terrible shame that is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But can we say that the wiping out of the people was the result of genocide, or of war?

It's a distinction without difference. Genocide does not necessarily mean rounding up people into concentration camps and executing them. If a whole people dies as the result of a war waged against them, genocide has still been committed.

This is true. However, conceptually , the idea of murder and the loss of life is that life should not be taken. In fact, life should be preserved wherever possible.

The Bible includes way too many commands for capital punishment and instructions to wage war for me to assume this is true.

However, there are also circumstances in which life must be taken. We may use different terms for the different situations in which life is lost. However, I see the loss of life as the loss of life. Period. Loss of life is always terrible, however the situation in which it occurs will determine the morality of it.

I feel similarly, but this is without the belief that the loss of life is occurring at the command of a good, noble and just God.

Because loss of life is a terrible thing.
I certainly hope I'd never feel good about the loss of life.

Personally, I agree. However, I would also think that if I believed in a God who I thought to be good that I could never feel bad about His will being done.

 

[TheKnight]

It's a distinction without difference. Genocide does not necessarily mean rounding up people into concentration camps and executing them. If a whole people dies as the result of a war waged against them, genocide has still been committed.

I suppose that's true.

The Bible includes way too many commands for capital punishment and instructions to wage war for me to assume this is true.

I'm not asking you to assume that it's true. Judaism teaches that one should attempt to preserve life at all costs. In fact, God even commands that a person should desecrate Shabbat if it is to save a life.

Judaism also teaches that we must also know that sometimes lives will have to be taken. In essence, the laws of capital punishment and instructions to wage war is the Torah's way of acknowledging that sometimes you have no choice but to fight. It is the Torah's way of providing an answer as to how to respond to certain situations, situations where life must be taken even though we would wish that it shouldn't have to be.

I feel similarly, but this is without the belief that the loss of life is occurring at the command of a good, noble and just God.
Personally, I agree. However, I would also think that if I believed in a God who I thought to be good that I could never feel bad about His will being done.

It's His will for that situation. If there is a situation where we have to go to war, then His will is that we fight the war. However, His will is is also that we should try our best not to have to go to war.

 

[Autodidact]

If God tells him to, yes.

When a person is commanded to do so by God Himself? As I said, morality is dependent on how God defines it.

So God commands evil actions?

I never called it genocide. I said it appears as if it is genocide.

It appears to be genocide but it's not? What, is it an illusion?

That doesn't mean it is. You see it as genocide, I see it as war. Essentially, we are discussing a war situation.

What we are discussing is a commandment to slaughter every man, woman, boy, girl and baby belonging to another tribe. Isn't that the definition of genocide?

In this situation people are going to die. That's how war works. You believe that a line should be drawn in war at women and children. I believe that one should not allow the presence of women and children to stop a person from doing what needs to be done.

That's not what we're discussing. They were not inadvertent casualties. What we're discussing is a specific, explicit commandment to be sure to kill all the women and children, make no exceptions.

You call my belief genocide, I call it war.

If someone does it to Jews, then is it genocide? Or just war?

We are talking about genocide/infanticide. My question had to do with whether or not the death of a human being is ever a good thing. Genocide, Infanticide, Homicide all have one common thread, the death of human beings. Therefore I ask my question again, is the death of a human being ever a good thing?

Start a thread. If you can't see the difference between a natural death and one person deliberately slaughtering an innocent baby, then I have to ask whether your religion has dulled your moral sense.

Again, you call it genocide, I call it war. This debate cannot reach a resolution so long as we disagree on what is moral. We can't discuss whether or not something is moral if we don't agree on what moral means.

I'd say if your morality doesn't prohibit genocide and infanticide, it's not worth spit.

That depends on the context of the situation in which the Israelite soldiers stabbed them and left them to die.

In which context would this be a moral action?

A human being is a human being. Whether it be an elderly person, a middle-aged adult, a teenager, a child, a baby, a fetus. The death of a human being is always an unfortunate thing. It's something that should never happen. Unfortunately, things don't always work like they should.

especially when God commands you to stab babies to death, and you do it.

War.

O.K. could you define genocide? msn says:

the systematic killing of all the people from a national, ethnic, or religious group, or an attempt to do this

Do you disagree?

I did not say that they had no other option but to kill those babies, I said We have to take whatever measures are necessary to eliminate evil. We should always attempt to take the peaceful route, but that's not always an option.

No one's asking for the peaceful route. What I'm suggesting is that winning the war was enough. They didn't have to kill the other side's children and babies. That is an inherently evil, unjustifiable action.

Please explain under what circumstances it's justified to kill infant and children enemy prisoners.

We could keep going around and around all day, but as I said above. Unless we agree on what morality is, we cannot have a discussion concerning the moral nature of any actions.

O.K., let's. Is genocide immoral? Infanticide?

 

[Autodidact]

There's this thing called war in which two nations fight one another. One nation may choose to let the presence of women and children stop their actions. Or, one nation may choose to do whatever needs to be done to accomplish victory in that war.

They had already accomplished victory. They won. It was over. They had killed all the men, and taken all the women prisoner. They did not need to kill the children to win the war. (Indeed, it's hard to imagine a circumstance in which you would, since a baby can't fight.) So it has nothing to do with needing to win. They weren't instructed to do what they needed to win. They were specifically commanded, over and over, to be absolutely sure not to leave anyone alive, not a single toddler, not an infant. Is this moral, in your view?

You try to beautify war by creating terms in which you can feel that a war is OK. I see war for what it is, a disgusting loss of human life. Do I think we should fight war? We should avoid it at all costs. If it's necessary, should we be afraid of doing it? Not at all.

NO, I don't. I just condemn genocide and infanticide. Not accidental, deliberate. NOt as a collateral casualty, as a deliberate policy. I say it's wrong. You say it's right. I'm an atheist. You're an observant Jew. What does this tell us about which is more moral?

 

[Mr Cheese]

Genocide is ok when it isnt your "group"

that's the bottom line, isn't it?

 

[TheKnight]

I am an Atheist. You're an observant Jew. What does this tell us about which is more moral?

I am not an observant Jew, I am an observant Noahide.

In any case, you have made it clear that you do not care for a discussion of whether or not genocide is OK when God commands it.
I see from the quoted statement that you came into this discussion with your hatred in hand.

This discussion has turned into a circus where you seek to be some sort of ringmaster who happily demonstrates that religion is evil. Whether or not it is actually evil matters not to you, all you know is that you hate it. God forbid I be the one to rid you of your bias.

If you would like any more information concerning the Jewish opinion of war, then listen to This Lecture by Rabbi Mendel Kaplan. He explains it much better then I could ever do.

 

[Autodidact]

I am not an observant Jew, I am an observant Noahide.

In any case, you have made it clear that you do not care for a discussion of whether or not genocide is OK when God commands it.
I see from the quoted statement that you came into this discussion with your hatred in hand.

This discussion has turned into a circus where you seek to be some sort of ringmaster who happily demonstrates that religion is evil. Whether or not it is actually evil matters not to you, all you know is that you hate it. God forbid I be the one to rid you of your bias.

If you would like any more information concerning the Jewish opinion of war, then listen to This Lecture by Rabbi Mendel Kaplan. He explains it much better then I could ever do.

I see. You realize that your position is morally indefensible, so you no longer choose to defend it.

Yes, I hate genocide. Also infanticide. I'm funny that way.

 

[Perfect Circle]

I am not an observant Jew, I am an observant Noahide.

In any case, you have made it clear that you do not care for a discussion of whether or not genocide is OK when God commands it.
I see from the quoted statement that you came into this discussion with your hatred in hand.

This discussion has turned into a circus where you seek to be some sort of ringmaster who happily demonstrates that religion is evil. Whether or not it is actually evil matters not to you, all you know is that you hate it. God forbid I be the one to rid you of your bias.

If you would like any more information concerning the Jewish opinion of war, then listen to This Lecture by Rabbi Mendel Kaplan. He explains it much better then I could ever do.

Auto does come across kind of caustic in some of her posts, but it really does seem like you're defending genocide in this situation. I don't think that she's even railing against relgion here... I think she's just trying to comprehend how anyone, under any orders, could morally justify slaughtering helpless infants.

 

[TheKnight]

I think she's just trying to comprehend how anyone, under any orders, could morally justify slaughtering helpless infants.

I can agree with that. However, as I said earlier, how can we debate the morality of a particular action if we don't agree on what morality is?

 

[Autodidact]

I can agree with that. However, as I said earlier, how can we debate the morality of a particular action if we don't agree on what morality is?

so let's discuss it. Do you consider infanticide moral? What about genocide? Are these moral actions?

Yes, pardon me for getting a trifle upset. Grown soldiers tearing babies in two with swords kind of gets on my nerves. But then, I'm not a theist.

 

[TheKnight]

so let's discuss it. Do you consider infanticide moral? What about genocide? Are these moral actions?

Yes, pardon me for getting a trifle upset. Grown soldiers tearing babies in two with swords kind of gets on my nerves. But then, I'm not a theist.

How can we discuss it? We don't agree on what morality is, neither do we agree on what exactly is happening. You are convinced that an immoral act of genocide is what is represented there. I see it as a moral act of war. We are using the same terms with different conceptual meanings behind them. There's not much we can discuss unless we first clear up those issues.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I see it as a moral act of war.

It is an intensely sick piece of justification methodologically no different from that used by those who slaughter children by blowing up falafel stands. You epitomize a disgusting lack of moral compass.

 

[fantome profane]

I see. My point, though, is that any soldier that were to fire on the civilians in attempt to kill the enemy soldier would not be immoral for doing so.

I understand this is your point, I understood your point when you made it way back in post 262, and I responded to that in post 263 saying that I find this attitude disgusting and morally reprehensible. And I still think you need to spend some more time thinking about this.

Listen, there are circumstances where it is actually morally acceptable to cause the death of an innocent person. But attempting to kill an enemy soldier is not an acceptable justification. There is no moral theory that I know of that considers trying to kill an enemy soldier justification for firing in the direction of a civilian. Any soldier that were to fire on the civilians in attempt to kill the enemy soldier would be committing an immoral act! Trying to kill an enemy soldier is not justification for this! The fact that you are at war is not justification for this!

The only thing that could justify firing in the direction of civilians would be if it was the only way to save the lives of civilians, but all other options must be explored first. Please understand this, the justification is to save civilian lives, not to kill enemy soldiers. The justification is not “we are at war”. Even saving the soldiers own life is not justification for firing at an innocent civilian.

There's this thing called war in which two nations fight one another. One nation may choose to let the presence of women and children stop their actions. Or, one nation may choose to do whatever needs to be done to accomplish victory in that war.

You try to beautify war by creating terms in which you can feel that a war is OK. I see war for what it is, a disgusting loss of human life. Do I think we should fight war? We should avoid it at all costs. If it's necessary, should we be afraid of doing it? Not at all.

One more time, trying to accomplish victory in war is not justification for causing the deaths of innocent people. True war is nasty, but war is also very often immoral. If the nation decides to kill innocent women and children in an attempt to win the war, they may succeed in winning, but the are fighting that war in an immoral way. They are committing an immoral act. War does not justify it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

One more time, trying to accomplish victory in war is not justification for causing the deaths of innocent people.

Actually, it can be.