There's no such thing as ethics!!!

[Singular Intellect]

The extinction of any particular unique group of living beings is actually quite common, whether by natural means or intentional ones.

Our aversion to the concept is a self imposed one; ergo, it's best to never forget that, because we can just as easily ignore that arbitrary imposition if and when it suits our purposes.

[Simon_Jester]

I've never heard of an admirable culture ignoring that self-imposed aversion, so while I'm well aware that we can choose to ignore it, I think it's vastly better not to.

[Singular Intellect]

I've never heard of an admirable culture ignoring that self-imposed aversion, so while I'm well aware that we can choose to ignore it, I think it's vastly better not to.

Of course you do, just as those 'non admirable cultures' would perceive their own methods and ideologies as superior to yours.

In the real world, people, groups, countries, etc don't just wake up one day decide "let's be the bad guys now!". Good and evil are human constructs that are arbitrarily defined, and just because one point of view is different from yours doesn't make it anymore 'wrong' than their assertion you are 'wrong'.

[Formless]

Yeah yeah, we get it, morals are relative. What else is new.

[Singular Intellect]

Yeah yeah, we get it, morals are relative. What else is new.

Ergo, the parameters of justifiable genocide can be whatever the fuck people want them to be. Pick whatever arbitrary premise you desire, and it's not difficult to be logically consistent defending it.

[Formless]

Ergo, the parameters of justifiable genocide can be whatever the fuck people want them to be.

Bullshit. I hate to break it to you, but no consistent ethics system agrees with this sentiment. Anthropology =! ethics.

[Singular Intellect]

Ergo, the parameters of justifiable genocide can be whatever the fuck people want them to be.

Bullshit. I hate to break it to you, but no consistent ethics system agrees with this sentiment. Anthropology =! ethics.

I fail to see the inconsistency of the larger and/or stronger group determining the ethics and morality of any given behavior and purpose, while over ruling any smaller and/or weaker group protesting it.

[Formless]

Ergo, the parameters of justifiable genocide can be whatever the fuck people want them to be.

Bullshit. I hate to break it to you, but no consistent ethics system agrees with this sentiment. Anthropology =! ethics.

I fail to see the inconsistency of the larger and/or stronger group determining the ethics and morality of any given behavior and purpose, while over ruling any smaller and/or weaker group protesting it.

That's not ethics, you moron. That's anthropology, maybe law if we're being generous. There is a difference. The premises of an ethics system are arbitrary, but that doesn't mean that you can just throw them out at a moments notice or declare that the actions of other societies are beyond judgment. And furthermore, you're missing the point of the thread. It was asking whether or not we think genocide is justifiable, and under what conditions. Moral relativity is irrelevant to the question.

[Singular Intellect]

I fail to see the inconsistency of the larger and/or stronger group determining the ethics and morality of any given behavior and purpose, while over ruling any smaller and/or weaker group protesting it.

That's not ethics, you moron. That's anthropology, maybe law if we're being generous. There is a difference. The premises of an ethics system are arbitrary, but that doesn't mean that you can just throw them out at a moments notice or declare that the actions of other societies are beyond judgment.

By all means, do explain why any group cannot throw out any ethical system if they so desire and it suits their purpose. You contradict yourself by admitting any ethical system is arbitrary, yet protest ethics cannot be arbitrarily redefined and/or ignored if so desired.

And I never said the actions of any society cannot be judged. I would simply point out any judgement of ours has no more validity than theirs other than by definition being our own and thus we subscribe to it.

And furthermore, you're missing the point of the thread. It was asking whether or not we think genocide is justifiable, and under what conditions. Moral relativity is irrelevant to the question.

Personally, I find it difficult to construct a scenario where genocide would be the logical and moral course of action. However, I don't completely rule it out as a unavoidable solution to a particular problem, even if I can't think of such a problem off hand.

[Kuroneko]

In the real world, people, groups, countries, etc don't just wake up one day decide "let's be the bad guys now!". Good and evil are human constructs that are arbitrarily defined, and just because one point of view is different from yours doesn't make it anymore 'wrong' than their assertion you are 'wrong'.

Why do you say they're arbitrary? Morality seems to be an evolved trait, and as such would not at all be arbitrary, and probably even to some extent absolute rather than relative.

[Formless]

By all means, do explain why any group cannot throw out any ethical system if they so desire and it suits their purpose.

Howabout you explain why I should agree with an ethical system which openly condones genocide carte blanch since such a system would quickly lead to our species self destruction. Morals are a tool, and the tool can be judged by its effectiveness. The ethics you describe fail the most basic test.

You contradict yourself by admitting any ethical system is arbitrary, yet protest ethics cannot be arbitrarily redefined and/or ignored if so desired.

The goal is arbitrary. The conclusions are not. Morals are, in my opinion, tools designed to promote the pursuit of common goals. And funny thing, but most humans (myself included) do believe in survival as a goal if nothing else. Genocide generally contradicts that goal.

Do you want to die?

And I never said the actions of any society cannot be judged. I would simply point out any judgement of ours has no more validity than theirs other than by definition being our own and thus we subscribe to it.

How are the two statements different? Our judgments have validity because they are statements that if we were in their shoes (and history is prone to repeating itself, so don't act like it can't happen) we wouldn't behave the same way.

[Singular Intellect]

Let me simplify my point as clearly as I can: no ethical or moral system is superior to another on the sole basis of being declared so by the one holding it.

Understand?

[Formless]

Let me simplify my point as clearly as I can: no ethical or moral system is superior to another on the sole basis of being declared so by the one holding it.

Understand?

That's beside the point. Logically, an ethical/moral system that more effectively does its job of either increasing human happiness or, if no one can agree to anything else, survival. Nothing is better simply because people say its better, but that doesn't mean all moral systems are of equal validity or value.

Genocide by its very nature reduces genetic variation among humanity, thus decreasing human survival; it also directly impacts human happiness for the worse since it involves people dying en mass. Thus, the negatives have to seriously outweigh the positives before it is justifiable. Historically this has never been the case, and the only thing that I can think of that theoretically might be justifiable would be if we were threatened by an alien race who dogmatically and emphatically disagrees with our existence to the man. Which would technically be xenocide as opposed to genocide, and would only be justified due to the fact that they want to do the same to us thus making it us vs them. Not that we would be likely to win, and if we were even then it would only be necessary if the weapons involved were massively and disproportionately prone to collateral damage. And even then only if they are the only weapons we can use without making that much more death and suffering. And you know what? Considering how out there that scenario would be, I'd say genocide is for all practical intents and purposes unjustifiable.

[Samuel]

Let me simplify my point as clearly as I can: no ethical or moral system is superior to another on the sole basis of being declared so by the one holding it.

Understand?

Not true- the fact that they are alive and unified is proof enough that it works.

[Singular Intellect]

*snip*

I think we're mostly in agreement with your last post there, with the understanding you're still arbitrarily picking criteria for your premise for ethical and moral behavior. The fact I personally agree with it, however, is also beside the point.

Let me simplify my point as clearly as I can: no ethical or moral system is superior to another on the sole basis of being declared so by the one holding it.

Understand?

Not true- the fact that they are alive and unified is proof enough that it works.

Are you trying to make a joke, or are you actually so stupid as to support my point by adding two additional criteria for an ethical system when I just finished stating an opinion about it as sole justification means nothing?

[Formless]

Look, why are we having this argument in this thread? Are you trying to drag it off topic?

[Samuel]

Are you trying to make a joke, or are you actually so stupid as to support my point by adding two additional criteria for an ethical system when I just finished stating an opinion about it as sole justification means nothing?

I honestly have no idea what that sentance means. I was simply saying that ethical systems put foward by individuals that exist, by virtue of existing are better than the infinite number of possible ethical systems. By they help with the whole "existing" part. Of course it is fine if you reject that- I always like people who are willing to donate their stuff for the greater good.

[Darth Wong]

This bullshit tangent has been split from the thread in which it originated. It's a classic cookie-cutter anti-ethics tangent which could be used to derail any ethics thread, regardless of its specific content.

[Autokrat]

Ethics can certainly exist and in fact, they do exist, otherwise no one would be making value judgments on actions.
There is this false idea that if you take God out of the equation, then everything is relative and therefore Ethics can be abandoned whenever the need arises.

Ethical relativism is not the solution or answer to anything; it is the problem, the default position that no one can live by.

Speaking for myself, as a utilitarian I operate on the assumption that happiness (happiness on a grand scale, usually rendered as: the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people) is better than unhappiness. This is presupposed as part of my ethical framework. This is no different from a religious person when they operate under the assumption that God exists and has dictated what is right and what is wrong. I am saying that I operate under assumption that happiness should be sought after over unhappiness and ergo, that framework dictates to me what is right and wrong.

Obviously, individual events and excruciating circumstances demand deliberation, but this doesn't mean that you simply abandon ethics because it is not better than anyone else's ethics on a universal or absolute scale.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Let me simplify my point as clearly as I can: no ethical or moral system is superior to another on the sole basis of being declared so by the one holding it.

Understand?

Yes. However there are other measures of ethical or moral systems. Humans have ethics. Whether or not these exist as metaphysical properties of the universe is irrelevant. They consist of rules for decision making in our heads that philosophers condense into moral principles that are then applied in a more systematic way than through intuition to reach ethical decisions.

An ethical system can best then, be judged based upon how well it performs at several tasks

A) How well it makes often competing moral principles agree with eachother and reduce cognitive dissonance in moral decision making

B) How internally consistent it is

C) How well a person following the system behaves in a manner that a rational person would consider to be a good and moral life.

In other words, is the ethical system Ethical Pragmatism...

[Darth Wong]

Did you notice that his statement implicitly contains the accusation that no ethics system can lay any claim to superiority over others apart from "because I say so"?

[Ryan Thunder]

What's the point of relative morality? You can get into specifics so that its flexible, but when it comes down to it, if all one has to do is say "Well I see it differently" to instantly justify whatever they're doing by their own personal moral code, what's the fucking point?

[Alyrium Denryle]

What's the point of morality if it isn't absolute? You can get into specifics so that its flexible, but when it comes down to it, if all one has to do is say "Well I see it differently" to instantly justify whatever they're doing by their own personal moral code, what's the fucking point?

The moral principles we use are not arbitrary constructs, nor are they metaphysical properties. They are based upon our hard-wired empathy for other human beings (and other organisms), extracted from that and systematized into decision making systems. Notions like fairness, justice, that suffering is bad. All of those are the direct spawn of our social mammal brain.

[Formless]

We need ethics. Its part of our psyche, and not only keeps us alive, but living in relative comfort. Its the driving force behind many human endeavors and scientific research. For example, medicine. Almost every innovation in that field was made by someone who wanted to make the world a better place; in a very direct way, that's the very purpose of medicine. Ditto for law. Ditto for education. Etc. Morals don't have to be absolute for this to be true.

[open_sketchbook]

Besides that, people have goals outside of ethics, thinks that are deeply engrained from evolution. We don't want to die, and we don't want to be so miserable that death is preferable to life. Unless you suffer from deep conditioning or serious imbalances, these things are universal. Depending on your particular ethics system you may value one over the other; pure rationalists would argue that sometimes people must die to reduce overall suffering, for example. Ethics is merely a framework by which we decide what the approprete means are to avoid these two things on an individual and global scale. Most ethics systems would condemn genocide because the fundamental driving force of the system is to avoid self-destruction, and if the genocide of those people can be justified, your own chances of being killed goes up.