Is genocide ok if God tells you to do it?

[Autodidact]

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.

Fine, let's clear it up.

You are wrong, and completely unable to defend your position, so refuse to discuss it. That's because your position is indefensible.

O.K., you say what is commanded in these verses is not genocide. Defend your assertion. Define genocide.

You want to discuss morality. O.K., Is genocide moral?

 

[fantome profane]

Actually, it can be.

Lets just say that is the subject of another debate, and a rather intense debate. But I suspect that even here the only way you are going to justify taking innocent lives will be the saving of more innocent lives.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Lets just say that is the subject of another debate, ...

Agreed.

 

[TheKnight]

O.K., you say what is commanded in these verses is not genocide. Defend your assertion. Define genocide.

The Israelites were commanded to go to war to fight for their land and to defend themselves from their enemies. They were commanded to eliminate those enemies should that be necessary.

You want to discuss morality. O.K., Is genocide moral?

I don't not believe that the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group is moral.

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.

Yes of course, I epitomize a disgusting lack of moral compass.

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!

If you are at war because your country has been attacked and because the blood of your people has been spilled, then it would certainly be justification for that.

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.

And as I said earlier, one should make every attempt to save both the life of the soldier and the life of the civilian. However, if that is not possible then it is not immoral to take the action necessary for the soldier to survive.

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

Every country that has ever gone to war disagrees with you. Tell me something, what makes killing anyone to accomplish victory in war justifiable?

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.

What immoral act are they committing? When the military kills soldiers, they take human lives. They take lives who have families, dreams, desires, hopes, etc etc etc. How is that any different then taking the life of a civilian? Both the life of the enemy soldier and the life of the enemy civilian are equally valuable. If you are so willing to kill one if necessary, why not the other if necessary? So much so that you would have one of (if not more then one of) our soldiers lose their own lives for the sake of a civilian in an enemy country?


And again, what is morality? Where do you get your morals from? We are discussing an issue of morality and we have two completely different systems of morality (at least that's what appears to be). How can you morally justify killing one person but then protest the killing of the other?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes of course, I epitomize a disgusting lack of moral compass.

Just so long as you don't do so in the name of Judaism.

 

[Autodidact]

The Israelites were commanded to go to war to fight for their land and to defend themselves from their enemies. They were commanded to eliminate those enemies should that be necessary.

O.K. Now would you define genocide? (4th time I've asked.)

I don't not believe that the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group is moral.

And isn't a commandment to utterly destroy every member of a group, man, woman, boy, girl and infant, the deliberate and systematic destruction of that group?

Yes of course, I epitomize a disgusting lack of moral compass.

Yes, it's sad what religion does to a person's moral judgment.

[qutoe]And again, what is morality? Where do you get your morals from? We are discussing an issue of morality and we have two completely different systems of morality (at least that's what appears to be). How can you morally justify killing one person but then protest the killing of the other?[/quote] Well, whatever your morality is, and wherever you get them from, they should include opposition to genocide and infanticide, don't you agree?

You're saying that if it's moral to kill someone who's coming at me wielding a machete, then it's equally moral to sneak into my neighbor's house and stab her sleeping baby to death? You're right, to epitomize a disgusting lack of moral compass. I'm guessing you're a theist?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't not believe that the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group is moral.

... unless it's "necessary"?

If you are at war because your country has been attacked and because the blood of your people has been spilled, then it would certainly be justification for that.

That's not justification. Blood that's already been spilled is a sunk cost: no matter what option you choose, that blood will remain spilled. Those who are dead will stay dead. The only proper rational basis for a decision is the effect of each possible choice; previously-spilled blood is common to all possible choices, therefore it does not form any part of the justification of choosing one course of action over another.

Not rationally, anyhow. Emotionally, maybe, but not rationally.

Every country that has ever gone to war disagrees with you. Tell me something, what makes killing anyone to accomplish victory in war justifiable?

I don't know of any war in recorded history where any side went to war solely for victory. War is not a sporting match.

What immoral act are they committing? When the military kills soldiers, they take human lives. They take lives who have families, dreams, desires, hopes, etc etc etc. How is that any different then taking the life of a civilian? Both the life of the enemy soldier and the life of the enemy civilian are equally valuable. If you are so willing to kill one if necessary, why not the other if necessary? So much so that you would have one of (if not more then one of) our soldiers lose their own lives for the sake of a civilian in an enemy country?

I think that the difference is that killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians is never necessary. Now... I'm not sure of fantome's position on this, but I should say that I personally make a moral distinction between incidental or collateral civilian casualties and deliberately targeting civilians.

 

[TheKnight]

O.K. Now would you define genocide?

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

And isn't a commandment to utterly destroy every member of a group, man, woman, boy, girl and infant, the deliberate and systematic destruction of that group?

I suppose.

Well, whatever your morality is, and wherever you get them from, they should include opposition to genocide and infanticide, don't you agree?

Yes. Moral systems should be opposed to the loss of human life.

You're saying that if it's moral to kill someone who's coming at me wielding a machete, then it's equally moral to sneak into my neighbor's house and stab her sleeping baby to death?

No. The text you quoted was directed at fantome profane and it was concerning the situation of an enemy solider hiding behind a civilian.

That's not justification.

The justification isn't that blood was spilled. The justification is that you're at war. The justification for the war would be that blood of your people was shed.

I don't know of any war in recorded history where any side went to war solely for victory. War is not a sporting match.

I agree. However, I would assume that most nations go into expecting victory.

I think that the difference is that killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians is never necessary.

I agree.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, it's sad what religion does to a person's moral judgment.

You paint with a very broad brush. There's a word for that ...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You paint with a very broad brush. There's a word for that ...

Ah yes, artist.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ah yes, artist.

I would expect you to confuse bigotry with artistry.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I would expect you to confuse bigotry with artistry.

Your expectations lead you to a lot of false conclusions.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not about you.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Not about you.

Especially about me, but especially about everything.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Especially about me, but especially about everything.

Interesting and predictable equation ...

 

[Autodidact]

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group[/qoute] Great.

I suppose.

So in the OT, God commands the Israelites to commit genocide, right? Because you agree that God commanded them to kill every member of certain other tribes, man, woman, boy, girl, infant. (Please don't make me repeat the verses.)

And you agree that genocide is immoral.

Therefore, you believe that God commanded us to do something immoral.

That's why I condemn your religious morality, as, to be consistent, should you.

Now, the interesting part. When God commands you to do something immoral, should you do it?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Interesting and predictable equation ...

There you go again. How surprising. <yawn>

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There you go again. How surprising. <yawn>

Perhaps you're right in a way. We should stop banging heads. I apologize ...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

We should stop banging heads. I apologize ...

Agreed. Likewise.

 

[TheKnight]

So in the OT, God commands the Israelites to commit genocide, right? Because you agree that God commanded them to kill every member of certain other tribes, man, woman, boy, girl, infant. (Please don't make me repeat the verses.)

God commanded the Israelites to go to war and, in order to accomplish victory in that war, eliminate every man, woman, boy, and child.

Therefore, you believe that God commanded us to do something immoral.

God didn't command us to do anything immoral. He commanded the Israelites to go to war and take the land that was theirs. He also commanded them to do whatever was necessary to take that land.

That's why I condemn your religious morality, as, to be consistent, should you.

You condemn it because you have a predisposed hatred of it.

Now, the interesting part. When God commands you to do something immoral, should you do it?

God is the definer of morality. Something is only moral/immoral because God labels it as such. Therefore if God tells us that something is immoral, then it is immoral. If God tells us that something is moral, then it is moral.

God tells us the He does not want us to take lives. However, knowing that this world is imperfect (for He made it that way) there may come a time where we will have to take lives. War is one of those times.

War, halakhically, is basically in a process. They go surround a city (on 3 sides) and they offer the city peace. If the city refuses to surrender, then they must allow those who desire to run to get away...Anyone who stays after that point is open for eliminating.