And this is like you telling me that when I see the colour blue you see the color green. The very fact that words have meaning and you and I can converse about the same topic is indication enough that the objective nature of morality is rooted in universal absolutes. How else could we even talk about it?
So there is no objective way to classify a given action into a moral category?
That’s your unsupported opinion, and the last part is demonstrably incorrect.
The point is that survival and immorality are supportive of each other in a world where most people are immoral. Being moral in an world will get you killed. Jesus (at least according to the “stories”) is a prime example of this.
The gestapo come to your house where you are hiding Jews who’ve escaped the round up for the concentration camps. They ask you if you know of their whereabouts? How do you answer? Is it better to lie or is it better to not lie?
Even if it were true in isolated cases, that’s all it takes. A handful of men willing to order other men to kill innocent people is enough to persuade otherwise ethical men into committing unethical acts (especially when their livelihood is at stake).
When someone kills a defenceless civilian on the basis of an ideology which categorizes that civilian as “genetically” or “morally” or “racially” inferior, that act is in and of itself immoral. When someone does so repeatedly without concern or guilt, this is the indication that they lack a conscience. Those who do so once or repeatedly and experience guilt, remorse, or angst (to name but a few consequences of immorality) show signs of possessing a conscience.
Therefore it’s quite appropriate to class all members of the Nazi party who participated in the willful slaughter of countless Jews, Jehovas Witness, the mentally ill - etc - into two categories; those who paid the moral price for their actions and those who were incapable of paying the price.
There is no such thing as a Nazi who both had a conscience and felt no grief at the killing of an innocent civilian.
All you need to do is demonstrate that genocide (or anything else) is objectively immoral? Can you support your position with any objective evidence, yes or no?
The scope of morality is to account for the emotional consequences of actions, words, or thoughts. In accounting for actions, words, or deeds we look at a persons motivations and intentions as well as their ability to feel emotions.
If a person is insane, their actions, speech or thoughts - if judged to be criminal by authorities are granted forgiveness.
If a person is of sane mind and commits a criminal offence - their actions words or deeds are judged to be immoral.
If a person is insane - it is not relevant to speak of any remorse they might have regarding a criminal action, word, or thought.
If a person is sane - it is relevant to speak of any remorse they might have regarding a criminal action, word, or thought.
You seem to think that we cannot label genocide as immoral because the perpetrators of the genocide don’t seem to find it immoral.
We can classify those who commit genocide in large groups against large groups. We can class them into those who do so willingly and those who do so unwillingly.
Those who commit genocide do so for a variety of reasons. None of those reasons are valid. They’re all rooted in ideology of hate. The Nazi’s for example believed in an ideology of racial and moral supremacy.
Because their ideology was rooted in the hatred or even simple disdain for another race or culture, it was immoral to start with. Hate is immoral. Acts committed out of hatred with the intention to cause harm and with the result of causing harm are immoral.
Perhaps you will argue that certain Nazi’s saw the eliminations of the Jews in Europe as necessary and crucial for the survival of the German people. Thus, you might argue these Nazi’s were committing genocide in the name of compassion for their people. “Ignorance” does not absolve one of immoral action.
The ideology of the Nazis was a hateful ideology rooted in ignorance. Those who did not hate the Jews but saw their eradication as the compassionate act which would save the German race acted out of ignorance and delusion.
Delusion suppresses a man’s conscience and causes him to act immorally. When his delusion clears and his conscience returns, he understands the great evil of his deeds.
Hatred suppresses a man’s conscience and causes him to act immorally. If his conscience ever returns, he comes to understand the evil of his actions.
By definition a man with a working conscience will not take the life of another man willingly. He will only do so under threat to his life, family, or prosperity.
The Nazi movement was motivated by the Nazi ideology. The authors of the Nazi ideology wrote their beliefs by inspiration of hatred and delusion. And they persuaded the German people of this ideology.
We can count the number of people who left Germany with a clean conscience in order to willingly escape the ideology.
As for all the others, they have been judged by history. And not just by the winners. On an objective level the delusion of the Nazi hate ideology based on suppositions of moral and racial superiority perverted the moral ethos of the German people, allowing a portion of the population to participate in the genocide.
To summarize, genocide is objectively immoral because it is immoral to murder a people under the delusional or hateful motive that one’s race is superior to another.
Supply me with an argument which successfully shows that one race is superior to another on grounds not based in hatred, greed, or delusion and I will grant you that the morality of genocide is subjective in nature.
