(June 21, 2013 at 8:14 am)Tonus Wrote: I think that this is where practicality and our ability to empathize/sympathize come into play. I don't think that getting rid of a group of people, based on a trait that in itself is not harmful (ethnicity, skin color, etc) is a logical goal. Group A may have as its goal to claim an area of land, and this may entail forcing the residents (Group B) to leave, and that may entail war and killing. Genocide would imply that if, after a period of war Group B begged for peace and offered to accept any terms, Group A would reject the terms and continue to fight until every last member of Group B was dead. This strikes me as very impractical for Group A, if the goal was to claim land.
Are you saying that people have a moral obligation to be logical?
Quote: Regarding the development of morals, I think that any system of morals or ethics can be reduced to the desire for the group (tribe, nation, community, etc) to prosper. In situations or environments where survival is difficult, morals will be less refined. In situations or environments where the group is prospering and its survival seems assured, issues of morality and ethics are very different.
You keep using terms that make it sound like there’s a system of moral standards that apply to all groups. I am not sure how you can say one group is more “refined” than the other if no such standard exists. Thoughts?
