Is genocide ok if God tells you to do it?

[ManTimeForgot]

Here's another formal proof:

1. Genocide is bad. (Premise is false since actions by themselves have no moral weight)
2. Therefore, a morality that condemns genocide is better than one that does not. (Conclusions which follows from false premises are invalid)
3. My morality condemns genocide; yours does not, if God permits it.
Therefore, my morality is better than yours.

Killing in a vacuum of circumstance is not wrong. It is very likely wrong, and that is why your argument is inductively quite strong. But killing by itself cannot be wrong because there are situations in which killing prevents more harm than it causes (does more good than harm). By logical extension of this there could conceivably be a time and a place for genocide.

If it somehow became necessary to exterminate a sub-section of the human population in order to prevent them from sterilizing the surface of the earth, then genocide would be moral thing to do. The plausibility of this particular scenario stretches credulity to be sure, but it is not impossible. Any moral individual would like to believe that there would always be a better way than large scale killing, but the truth is more more gritty and hard to swallow. Sometimes we do not know what that "better thing is" and waiting around until we do would allow more harm to be done than would be done if we act with a "sub-optimal" plan now.


Anyone morality system which rejects any action absolutely is immoral at its outset as it restricts available actions during the variety of circumstances that life possesses. Unless you happen to have flawless foreknowledge (psychically knowing the future or what not), you cannot possibly be aware of what life will throw at you, and as such you have to be able to keep your options open (at least in the theoretical).


In practice genocide should be condemned. We do not want people in general to believe that this is a generally useful option... We should strive to work out our problems with less harm done. But completely ignoring any option would mean that we would be unable to deal with situations in which even greater harm stands to be done. It is this logic that stands at the root of "We do not negotiate with terrorists." No matter what the terrorists threaten more harm would be done in the future by giving in to the demands because more demands would get made. There is, however, a breaking point. If terrorists are capable of threatening a whole society/country, then capitulation is very likely morally necessary. You would have to undertake "covert" methods to undermine such a threat, or be willing to "take on for the team" so to speak and let your society be destroyed so that other societies/nations do not suffer the same fate.


MTF

 

[Autodidact]

Whether or not I agree isn't answering the question. How do you know that geocide is bad?

I beg to differ. If we agree on that premise, then we can work from there. Do we?

 

[TheKnight]

If we agree on that premise, then we can work from there.

Wrong. If we reach the same conclusion with different methodology and mindset then the chances are that we reached a similar conclusion by happenstance. In order to have any discussion on any further related topic we need to first figure out how we both arrived at the same conclusion that genocide is bad. I agree that it is bad, but I am certain our methodology at making that conclusion is very different.

Due to that difference, it is impossible to continue further discussion on the details of the morality of genocide because we reached the moral conclusion that genocide is bad through different means.

 

[Autodidact]

Wrong. If we reach the same conclusion with different methodology and mindset then the chances are that we reached a similar conclusion by happenstance. In order to have any discussion on any further related topic we need to first figure out how we both arrived at the same conclusion that genocide is bad. I agree that it is bad, but I am certain our methodology at making that conclusion is very different.

Due to that difference, it is impossible to continue further discussion on the details of the morality of genocide because we reached the moral conclusion that genocide is bad through different means.

Great. How do you know it's bad?

 

[TheKnight]

Great. How do you know it's bad?

I asked you first.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Is genocide OK if God tells you to do it?

OK according to who?

According to God, yes.

 

[Autodidact]

Killing in a vacuum of circumstance is not wrong. It is very likely wrong, and that is why your argument is inductively quite strong. But killing by itself cannot be wrong because there are situations in which killing prevents more harm than it causes (does more good than harm). By logical extension of this there could conceivably be a time and a place for genocide.

If it somehow became necessary to exterminate a sub-section of the human population in order to prevent them from sterilizing the surface of the earth, then genocide would be moral thing to do. The plausibility of this particular scenario stretches credulity to be sure, but it is not impossible. Any moral individual would like to believe that there would always be a better way than large scale killing, but the truth is more more gritty and hard to swallow. Sometimes we do not know what that "better thing is" and waiting around until we do would allow more harm to be done than would be done if we act with a "sub-optimal" plan now.


Anyone morality system which rejects any action absolutely is immoral at its outset as it restricts available actions during the variety of circumstances that life possesses. Unless you happen to have flawless foreknowledge (psychically knowing the future or what not), you cannot possibly be aware of what life will throw at you, and as such you have to be able to keep your options open (at least in the theoretical).


In practice genocide should be condemned. We do not want people in general to believe that this is a generally useful option... We should strive to work out our problems with less harm done. But completely ignoring any option would mean that we would be unable to deal with situations in which even greater harm stands to be done. It is this logic that stands at the root of "We do not negotiate with terrorists." No matter what the terrorists threaten more harm would be done in the future by giving in to the demands because more demands would get made. There is, however, a breaking point. If terrorists are capable of threatening a whole society/country, then capitulation is very likely morally necessary. You would have to undertake "covert" methods to undermine such a threat, or be willing to "take on for the team" so to speak and let your society be destroyed so that other societies/nations do not suffer the same fate.


MTF

Although one can conceive of some sort of bizarre scenario where genocide could be morally justified, or at least argued for, as far as I can think such a scenario has never happened in human history. Therefore for all intents and purposes I don't think we need to worry about such a thing happening, and as a practical, real-world matter, and can take that premise as true.

 

[Autodidact]

I asked you first.

Well I was going into a long involved explanation based on evolutionary psychology, nuerology and game theory, but I'll just sum it up like this:

The purpose of our lives is to be happy.
If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion.

 

[TheKnight]

The purpose of our lives is to be happy.
If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion.

So, in essence, you base your moral categorization of genocide on what you believe to be the purpose of life and the method you think best supports that purpose.

So tell me, if I am happy by killing others, and I feel that their death is best for them, am I being moral according to your system?

I believe that genocide is bad because God classifies the death of a human being and the loss of life as something that we should not do arbitrarily. We should do all that we can to ensure the preservation of all life. No more life than is necessary should be taken.

However, I also believe that God does outline certain times when it may be necessary to take a life. We shouldn't enjoy it, it shouldn't make us happy, but if it is necessary then it is necessary.

 

[Autodidact]

So, in essence, you base your moral categorization of genocide on what you believe to be the purpose of life and the method you think best supports that purpose.

Well, it's an empirical question. We are so made that we cannot help but feel sympathy for other people, and suffer pain when we harm them.

So tell me, if I am happy by killing others, and I feel that their death is best for them, am I being moral according to your system?

If you are happy by killing others, you are a sociopath, and there is not much point in discussing morality with you.

I believe that genocide is bad because God classifies the death of a human being and the loss of life as something that we should not do arbitrarily.

Well you've got a lot more problems than I do. As you would say, how do you know?

We should do all that we can to ensure the preservation of all life. No more life than is necessary should be taken.

I understand the discomfort from the inherent ambiguity in trying to find a firm basis for morality. However, I think that turning to an authoritarian God as a source for that turns out not to work, it's building your morality on a foundation of sand. What you end up with is a situational, relativistic ethics usually based on an ancient codification of tribal purity taboos. For example, a morality in which picking up sticks on Saturday is condemned, but stabbing babies is commanded.

I think you get a firmer basis grounding your ethics in reality, and using an empirical approach to what really works.

However, I also believe that God does outline certain times when it may be necessary to take a life. We shouldn't enjoy it, it shouldn't make us happy, but if it is necessary then it is necessary.

And too bad for the poor dead Midianite baby! Tough cookies!

 

[TheKnight]

If you are happy by killing others, you are a sociopath, and there is not much point in discussing morality with you.

So you don't have a moral reason. You just don't like the fact that someone else might be happy killing others (BTW, I don't find joy in killing others). If you believe that the purpose of life to be happy, and killing makes a person happy, then on what basis can you (with your own standard of how life should be lived) judge another person?

Or do you presume to know what makes everyone happy and therefore feel that everyone should be bound to live by your opinion of what makes them happy?

I think you get a firmer basis grounding your ethics in reality, and using an empirical approach to what really works.

Reality is subjective to the person who is viewing those events that are external to them. Your reality is not necessarily the reality of everyone else.

 

[painted wolf]

One has to wonder about the sins of an infant.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

So you don't have a moral reason.

For what?

You just don't like the fact that someone else might be happy killing others (BTW, I don't find joy in killing others).

Of course not, do you?

If you believe that the purpose of life to be happy, and killing makes a person happy, then on what basis can you (with your own standard of how life should be lived) judge another person?

It is factually incorrect that killing makes people happy.

Or do you presume to know what makes everyone happy and therefore feel that everyone should be bound to live by your opinion of what makes them happy?

NO, I don't assume, I base my views on actual scientific research, which shows that killing other people is one of the most traumatic, life-shattering things a person can do.

Reality is subjective to the person who is viewing those events that are external to them. Your reality is not necessarily the reality of everyone else.

You're right. Everything is everything, and science is impossible. Let's use the Ouija board to determine what medicine to use.

What I'm getting at, Knight, is that ethics is about virtue, and virtue is the science of happiness. It's not about hedonism or doing what feels good. It's about learning wisdom, and that the best path to happiness is through practicing compassion to others. That's what works--at least, that's what the psychologists tell us.

 

[Autodidact]

But don't take my word for it. Take your next opportunity to do an act of kindness. Put a dime in a parking meter. Hold a door open. Wave a merging car into traffic--and see if it doesn't make you feel better.

Here's a thought experiment. Picture a 6 month old infant.

Imagine taking your sword and stabbing it through. Do you feel happy?

Now imagine making it laugh or smile, or holding it tenderly. How do you feel now?

 

[TheKnight]

Of course not, do you?

No. I don't like it. That doesn't make it immoral though. Morality isn't based on what I like/don't like.

It is factually incorrect that killing makes people happy.

Oh really? Cause I'm fairly certain that there are plenty of people that find joy in killing.

NO, I don't assume, I base my views on actual scientific research, which shows that killing other people is one of the most traumatic, life-shattering things a person can do.

For who? The killer or the killed? You base your morality on what you feel, on what you like and don't like.

There's nothing wrong with that, I just think you should realize the subjectivity of that. You say genocide is bad, I say why, you say because you don't like it, I say that's not a reason to call anything bad.

You're right. Everything is everything, and science is impossible. Let's use the Ouija board to determine what medicine to use.

What I'm getting at, Knight, is that ethics is about virtue, and virtue is the science of happiness. It's not about hedonism or doing what feels good. It's about learning wisdom, and that the best path to happiness is through practicing compassion to others. That's what works--at least, that's what the psychologists tell us.

1. I think you depend far too much on what people tell you.
2. If virtue=being happy, then virtue=hedonism because hedonism also = happy.

You, by your own admission, basically consider morality to be that which makes the most amount of people happy. That's fine, I just think you should realize that such a view has intense flaws.

 

[Autodidact]

No. I don't like it. That doesn't make it immoral though. Morality isn't based on what I like/don't like.

Oh really? Cause I'm fairly certain that there are plenty of people that find joy in killing.

You are mistaken. There are very few. They are psychopaths. And they don't live by any morality, so there's not point in discussing with them. Many of them do exploit people's reliance on a divine morality to increase their opportunity to promote cruelty.

For who? The killer or the killed? You base your morality on what you feel, on what you like and don't like.

No, I don't. I base it on the factual reality that people are so constituted that practicing lovingkindness leads to happiness.

There's nothing wrong with that, I just think you should realize the subjectivity of that. You say genocide is bad, I say why, you say because you don't like it, I say that's not a reason to call anything bad.

No, that's not what I said. Maybe you haven't been reading my posts.

1. I think you depend far too much on what people tell you.

Well, I am pro-science.

2. If virtue=being happy, then virtue=hedonism because hedonism also = happy.

You are once again mistaken. It turns out that hedonism is a terrible way to try to achieve happiness. You're not up on the current research in this area, are you?

You, by your own admission, basically consider morality to be that which makes the most amount of people happy. That's fine, I just think you should realize that such a view has intense flaws.

So you say, you just haven't managed to point out what any of them are. Nor did I say, "the most people." What I am saying is that each individual has a limited amount of time to live the best life possible. And one way to do that is to practice compassion to other human beings. Their reward for living a good life is--a good life.

There is no shortcut to happiness. Achieving it takes wisdom to guide virtue. You can't be a ******* and then buy some happiness. The only way to achieve it is to be virtuous. Included in that virtue is compassion for other people. And if there's one thing that demonstrates an utter lack of compassion, it's genocide.

 

[TheKnight]

You are mistaken. There are very few. They are psychopaths. And they don't live by any morality, so there's not point in discussing with them. Many of them do exploit people's reliance on a divine morality to increase their opportunity to promote cruelty.

I see. So then did those german executioners who murdered millions of Jews take joy in their killing? Or did they feel bad about it?

No, I don't. I base it on the factual reality that people are so constituted that practicing lovingkindness leads to happiness.

Ok. So practicing love and kindness leads to happiness. What does that have to do with morality? All you're saying is that practicing hatred leads to unhappiness.

Is morality based on the happiness factor?

Well, I am pro-science.

Your trust in that which scientists tell you is not that different than my trust in the Rabbis of the Jewish oral tradition.

You are once again mistaken. It turns out that hedonism is a terrible way to try to achieve happiness. You're not up on the current research in this area, are you?

Hedonism: the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life

Are you or are you not saying that happiness is the sole/chief good in life?

So you say, you just haven't managed to point out what any of them are. Nor did I say, "the most people." What I am saying is that each individual has a limited amount of time to live the best life possible. And one way to do that is to practice compassion to other human beings. Their reward for living a good life is--a good life.

The majority of people, though they will occasionally practice loving-kindness, do not live a lifestyle of loving-kindness practice.

And you're still talking about how to live good life, what does that have to do with morality? Do you consider morality and a good life to be equal?

There is no shortcut to happiness. Achieving it takes wisdom to guide virtue. You can't be a ******* and then buy some happiness. The only way to achieve it is to be virtuous. Included in that virtue is compassion for other people. And if there's one thing that demonstrates an utter lack of compassion, it's genocide.

So in essence, you believe that true happiness is found in loving-kindness. For the record, I agree.

You say that genocide is a lack of compassion. I agree with that too.

However, neither of those has anything to do with morality. Morality: a doctrine or system of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.

My point, in saying that if God commands genocide then it is moral, is that (in my opinion anyways) morality is dependent on that which God determines to be right and wrong.

It has nothing to do with whether or not we like it or whether or not it is kind. No person of sane mind likes genocide. I believe that you have equated my defense of moral God-sanctioned genocide with my liking genocide. Morality is not a matter of what I like, or what makes me or others happy. Morality is a matter of that which is right and that which is wrong. Something that I believe God defines.

 

[Autodidact]

I see. So then did those german executioners who murdered millions of Jews take joy in their killing? Or did they feel bad about it?

They hated it. They did it because they thought it was their duty. They were mistaken.

Ok. So practicing love and kindness leads to happiness. What does that have to do with morality?

Everything.

All you're saying is that practicing hatred leads to unhappiness.

I am saying that, and much more.

Is morality based on the happiness factor?

Yes. As Aristotle noted, it is the final answer to why we do everything we do.



Your trust in that which scientists tell you is not that different than my trust in the Rabbis of the Jewish oral tradition.


Hedonism: the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life

Are you or are you not saying that happiness is the sole/chief good in life?


The majority of people, though they will occasionally practice loving-kindness, do not live a lifestyle of loving-kindness practice.

And you're still talking about how to live good life, what does that have to do with morality? Do you consider morality and a good life to be equal?


So in essence, you believe that true happiness is found in loving-kindness. For the record, I agree.

You say that genocide is a lack of compassion. I agree with that too.

However, neither of those has anything to do with morality. Morality: a doctrine or system of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.

My point, in saying that if God commands genocide then it is moral, is that (in my opinion anyways) morality is dependent on that which God determines to be right and wrong.

It has nothing to do with whether or not we like it or whether or not it is kind. No person of sane mind likes genocide. I believe that you have equated my defense of moral God-sanctioned genocide with my liking genocide. Morality is not a matter of what I like, or what makes me or others happy. Morality is a matter of that which is right and that which is wrong. Something that I believe God defines.[/quote]

 

[Autodidact]

Your trust in that which scientists tell you is not that different than my trust in the Rabbis of the Jewish oral tradition.

Well, the trust is the same, but the reason for it is different. btw, those Rabbis said some smart stuff.

http://m-w.com/dictionary/hedonism

Hedonism: the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life

Where did you get that definition? Here's the first that popped up on my Google:

Hedonism is a school of philosophy which argues that pleasure has an ultimate importance and is the most important pursuit of humanity.

Are you or are you not saying that happiness is the sole/chief good in life?

Yes.

The majority of people, though they will occasionally practice loving-kindness, do not live a lifestyle of loving-kindness practice.

And so they are not as happy as they might be.

Yes, I take the Aristotelian view that ethics is about living the virtuous life.

So in essence, you believe that true happiness is found in loving-kindness. For the record, I agree.

Among other things.

You say that genocide is a lack of compassion. I agree with that too.

However, neither of those has anything to do with morality. Morality: a doctrine or system of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.

You are looking for a set of rules to follow. That is a primitive view of morality. If you look at ethics as an enquiry into how to use wisdom to learn virtue, you get a more sophisticated type of morality.

My point, in saying that if God commands genocide then it is moral, is that (in my opinion anyways) morality is dependent on that which God determines to be right and wrong.

Yes, that's a primitive view, rife with problems.

It has nothing to do with whether or not we like it or whether or not it is kind. No person of sane mind likes genocide. I believe that you have equated my defense of moral God-sanctioned genocide with my liking genocide. Morality is not a matter of what I like, or what makes me or others happy. Morality is a matter of that which is right and that which is wrong. Something that I believe God defines.

Since there is no God, you are mistaken. In any case, even if there is, it is extremely unlikely that the writers of the Tanakh knew any more about Him than you or I.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

I haven't read all of these, so excuse me if it's already been brought up but what if god himself (if he exists at all) commits genocide; does that make it moral and would that make you moral yourslef if you unquestionngly continue to worship him?