If the majority of the world had approved of the Holocaust would that have made it morally correct?
Why or why not?
Of course not. Anyone who thinks so is crazy. Of course there are some who do not believe it even happened.
Thank you for your answer. Now, why do you feel it would still be immoral despite the fact that, hypothetically, it enjoyed the approval of the globe's majority?
To use my mother's argument: if the majority of the world agreed to jump off a bridge, would that make it right? Just because people agree to it, doesn't mean it's right.
Why not? What are you grounding your morality in?
Humanity. We're humans, not sheep. Rounding up our fellow humans and gassing them to death because we don't like their religion is wrong. It's always wrong, no matter how many people participate. It's genocide.
And just what makes humanity of more value than sheep?
I'm trying to think of a reason that the majority of the world would approve of genocide---and there isn't one. Of course it wouldn't be morally correct to kill millions of people based on their religion, or for any other reason. It's immoral, no matter who is doing it, and for what reason.
Thank you for sharing your opinion
Can you explain why it would still be immoral despite having, hypothetically, the approval of the majority of the world's populace?
The majority of people here accept the fact that we bomb other countries killing people constantly. It is deemed morally acceptable or the norm by the majority of Americans because they feel they can justify it. Sad, but the masses are ignorant.
The question wasn't about war. It was about the Holocaust. It was about rounding up people, and marching them into gas chambers. It was about extermination, not winning a war. When is that ever moral?
But why would that not be moral even if the majority approve?
Morality isn't a majority rules issue. Rounding up a specific group of people, and exterminating them is wrong, no matter how many people say they want it. We can vote on the small stuff. This? No voting. Genocide is inhuman.
In a world where a majority wouldn't have had a problem with the Holocaust, the very basics of morality would probably be completely opposite.
You cannot say for certain Lisa that it would be inhuman, as strange as it sounds.
Based on what do you claim it's "inhuman"? What are you grounding your moral values in?
I think if enough social sites made it acceptable a lot of people would agree.
but Not me.
I have never been a follower,even before internet became mainstream, I go by what is right in my heart.I reject a lot of what is acceptable and a lot of people think.I'm crazy.but I don't flirt when married,I don't follow the ways society looks upon "love." And I know that I wouldn't follow the holocaust hype if, it were accepted.
Why not? If everyone, in this hypothetical, thought the Holocaust was moral why wouldn't you believe the same?
If the majority decide morality, then you're back to "might makes right." There's more of us so we decide what goes. If your morality is relative to what the masses dictate, then it's really no morality at all... just herd mentality. That's why morality doesn't work apart from absolute truths, which people don't like to admit.
No, popular opinion is not the only factor that dictates morality. But it is one of the factors. Take slavery in the U.S. as an example. At one point, the majority found no problem with keeping humans as property. As time passed, opinion began to shift until the civil war broke out. Now the majority believes slavery is wrong. Hindsight is another factor in morality; reflecting on past actions with new information.
A virus can kill thousands of people, but it isn't inherently evil. A human killing thousands of people is regarded as evil because they should have known better. We humans are a collective pack, so when some of us succeed so do others. Murder is a breech of that pack, and harms us all. So pack mentality is another factor of morality. So, my point is that morality is a constantly shifting concept that is influenced by countless different sources.
Why? How is human life objectively of more value than any other organism's?
A lot of people do value non-human lives on the same level as human lives. But in general, we can more easily relate to our own species. So it's logical we would value human lives over non-human ones.
So it isn't an objective valuation but mere sentimentality?
Correct, it's not objective. We're incredibly biased when it comes to our own importance. And there is no third party of equal or greater intelligence to give us a second opinion.
You're a freakin genius!!!
Consider this: the people who performed the holocaust believed it was morally right. What does that say about morality? Also, the holocaust was not the only case of genocide ever committed- just the most talked about. In fact, the victims of said event were descended from people who performed genocide as well for 'moral' reasons.
Be it known, however, that all of humanity has a common ancestry. Genocide is never anything more than cousins murdering their own kind.
Because the majority of the world turns a blind eye to the 30,000 men, women and children that die in Africa EVERYDAY from starvation, doesn't make it morally correct, it is still a travesty.
So the answer would be NO.
However the AP (Associated Press) conducted a poll in 1939 to determine the Jewish Population of the World, which it concluded to be around 5 million. At the end of WWII, in 1945, they (AP) conducted the same poll only to learn that there now were 4 million Jews.
For the Nazi's to have killed 6 million Jews they could only have murdered children under the age of six and one million adults, either that or the Associated Press is lying OR . . .
The entire Holocaust Genocide thing was propaganda to support the creation of Israel right smack in the middle of 40 million Arabs that really didn't want that to happen.
More Gypsies were killed in the Holocaust than any other ethnic group, how come they didn't get their own country?
by The Friendly Web Guy 6 years ago
Is doing the wrong thing for the right reasons ever acceptable?Feel free to explain your point of view by using specific examples.
by Claire Evans 9 years ago
Jews were delivered from Egypt by God in the Old Testament but weren't delivered from Hitler. Why? Why did God suddenly go silent after Jesus?
by Julie Grimes 13 years ago
As written by, and believed by- British philosopher Bertrand Russell. Who wrote the 1927 pamphlet, Why I Am Not A Christian."He writes;"Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel...
by Judy Specht 11 years ago
What is morality?In a recent forum that set forth abolition of religion would have no effect on society, the word morality was tossed around until it made perfectly reasonable(my assumption) people sound accepting of anything..
by taburkett 7 years ago
What do you do personally to make society a better place? What do you think others should do?Today many people blame others for the decay in moral society. However, these same individuals do not accept responsibility for their negative actions. What do you think needs to be done to restore...
by Sophia Angelique 12 years ago
This is a very difficult question. It's about standards in different things. Standards of behaviour. Standards in work. Standards in writing. Standards in anything.It's about where we say, "This is acceptable, and this is not."I find it a difficult question because I think one has to...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|