Questions on genocide

Ethics
1

I had some questions regarding the morality of genocide. I divided genocide into escapable and inescapable genocide. The first detracts from the classical definition of genocide. It is a genocide targeted towards groups of people who have properties that they can change in order to “escape” accusation, e.g. religion, clothing style, etc. This is largely fictional.

Inescapable genocide is one targeted towards people who are accused of having a property they cannot change, e.g. skin colour or ethnic makeup.

Can the conduct of escapable genocide be regarded as not being as evil as that of an inescapable genocide? The target group in this case is given a choice to stay alive under certain conditions. On an individual level, a similar question arises. Is restricting freedom at gunpoint equally as bad as murder? Is bank robbery an equally serious crime as murder?

Second, inescapable genocide can, to an extreme extent, be justified if the target group has a property that objectively threatens another group, e.g. a non-curable contagious illness (thought experiment). However, by this logic, we should, for example, have the moral justification to kill tigers for their unchangeable property of being carnivores. However, not all tigers are currently on a rampage to kill us all.

This is an interesting consequence because people with a non-curable contagious illness represent an immediate threat to the survival of another group contemplating genocide, whereas tigers are not currently an immediate threat.

Could this be answered in a consequentialist manner, where the size of the targeted group and the genocidal group determines who should be ethically alive?

2

Genocide is the mass killing of a group based on their belonging to an identifiable group. I can’t imagine that it is ever moral under any circumstances.

When ever has a genocide every been perpetuated based on clothing? Is this what you mean by fictional?

No, genocide is just as evil. period.

So we kill them all? Wherefore the humanity?

But this is just not a thing?

Genocide is never ethical.

1 Like
3

Pretty much in agreement with you, genocide no matter how you dress it can never be justified.

It’s almost like trying to justify the actions of a serial killer.

The question is, if genocide cannot be justified under any circumstances why does it happen ? Well some human beings are truly evil, there can not be any other explanation.

1 Like
4

I think there are some wrong settings when we deal with such questions by using this way of reasoning.

One wrong setting is about the fact that any abstract thought, reasoning, frame, structure, will never be able to manage historical situations in a satisfactory way. This applies to all questions that involve killing. Killing a precise living being, be it a human, an animal, or a plant, is a historical event that escapes any kind of abstraction. That’s why laws will never be able to fully govern life. This does not mean that we shouldn’t make use of laws or of abstraction. We just need to make use of them without forgetting that they are extremely limited instruments, compared to the infinite complexity of what is particular, historical.

Another wrong setting is that abstract thought ignores subjectivity, while actually morality is entirely based on subjectivity. Objective morality does not exist. This means that when we try to deal with such questions, we should openly express our subjective opinions, rather than ignoring them in an attempt to favour objectivity. Since objectivity is precisely the wrong stance in such questions, I think we should discuss them with a methodology of dialogue between different subjectivities, rather than pretending to be objective.

Once we have clarified these points, it becomes much clearer how to deal with questions like, for example the following one: if a mad person is going to destroy the world and the only way we have to save the world is killing that mad person, what should we do? After what I said, it becomes clear that the question is radically flawed, because it looks for an objective answer and makes use of an abstract reasoning that ignores history and subjectivity.

If we ignore these wrong settings, such questions about killing are perfect recipes to build discussions aimed to be infinite without ever gaining any progress.

5

This is exactly what genocidal people think, it is their reason to justify their actions. This way we are already preparing ourselves to be in turn genocidal people.

6

Oh I see, although I cannot fathom how a genocidal regime would view a child as being evil.

If genocide occurs because of some perceived difference be it biology or ideology, then such actions are still universally wrong.

7

I think you have touched on the key point: difference. There is a tendency in nature to kill those whom we decide to consider different, be it because of race, sex, economy, laws, traditions, biology, culture. Unfortunately the mechanism that in nature creates the marvellous differences that we can see is that of competition. Predators try to kill all preys. What prevents predators from completing “genocides” is that, after killing all their preys, they don’t have food anymore. If, for example, lions killed all gazelles and all other preys, at the end they would remain without any food. The same happens to herbivores eating grass. We, as humans, can try to favour a world where difference is appreciated and protected thanks to peaceful criterions, rather than competition.

8

Some rulers who have perpetrated genocide, have done so because of their unchecked power over a certain minority who did not have equal power to fight back and survive.

It is precisely this imbalance of power, which has been used unjustly in the past for such cruel intents, and it’s currently happening tragically and needlessly in the Middle East with Netanyahu being the chief architect of it.

The indifference of others to such actions results in powerlessness to end it and this is the ultimate tragedy of it.

9

I think that this would open the question: who should control the kind and amount of power that people can get, and how? I think that this is actually a vitious circle, because “control” means actually “power”, so the question is “who should have power, and what kind of power should they have, to control those who have power?” Clearly, the question opens a further degree of the same question, in an infinite backward chain. The consequence isn’t so comforting: if the infinite chain, or vicious circle, is created by the problem of power controlling power, the way to break it is a way of non-power, which means a philosophy of weakness, like, for example Vattimo’s “weak thought”. I think that democracy, despite its apparent fairness, is still based on a logic of power: it means literally power of the people. That’s why it cannot be the final solution to the problem of uncontrolled power.

10

As Plato rightly said:

A man’s criterion is what he does with power.

Real character remains invisible until it’s given the permission to be cruel. So to this effect, we cannot stop people exhibiting cruelty but we can put it to an end eventually.

In effect we have to develop our own capabilities and strengths in order to counter such injustices or cruelties occurring and where it is within our power to stop it happening even outside of our borders.

11

That was the logic used for the Shoah.

1 Like
12

You speak of justifications for genocide and provide a criteria for ranking them.

What possible use could there be for such criteria?

1 Like
13

There are gray (that’s “grey” for you Brits) areas. What about bombing cities during a war? The excuse is that there are military targets embedded in the civilian population. But the results are similar to genocide (and much of the Gaza “genocide” falls into this category).

Bombing cities was considered unethical conduct in warfare until it became commonplace in WWII, culminating, of course. in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The justification for the A-bombs is that they ended the war and actually reduced the number of deaths and casualties that would otherwise have occurred. We can never know if that is true, but my own father (a generally moral person) supported it because he was about to be shipped out to the Pacific Theater after kicking Hitler’s butt in Europe.

As an aside, he remained prejudiced against Germans for the rest of his life. Some 40 years later I asked him if it wasn’t time he got over it.

“I have a good reason for disliking Germans,” he said. Then he paused for effect: “They tried to kill me!” I’m not sure that drafted soldiers’ lives are somehow less meaningful than civilians’.

14

In the killing. We do tihs to animals constantly, and risking the world for a group of non-curable people who wont take it upon themselves to keep everyone else safe, doesn’t seem great.

Is the alternate to just put them on an island somewhere? Genuine question, becuase I’m extremely uncomfortable with what I’ve said above.

@Paine I presume the use for it is in discussion/policy settings.

True belief that one is under threat is usually mitigating in law. I’m unsure how a state necessarily does that, but I’m just acknowleging there’s this small sliver of room for that discussion. I do think, though, it’s pointless in practice.

15

Do we save ourselves or damn ourselves? Even for non-religious people, that’s a reasonable question. We are all going to die, but not all of us will commit murder.

16

Ethnic considerations aside, but not always, the Hebrew god of the Old Testament obviously thinks genocide and/or mass murder is ok. In fact, the stories tell us Yahweh is a murderous cunt. Let’s take a peak from the scriptures:

  1. Genesis 6–9: Yahweh destroys virtually all human and animal life in the Flood, sparing only Noah, etc.
  2. Genesis 19: Yahweh takes out Sodom and Gomorrah, killing the populations of the two cities with fire and brimstone.
  3. Exodus 12: Yahweh kills the firstborn of Egypt, from Pharaoh’s household to prisoners and animals, as the final plague against the Egyptians.
  4. Deuteronomy 7: Yahweh commands Israel to annihilate the Canaanite nations completely and explicitly forbids them from making treaties with or showing mercy to them.
  5. Deuteronomy 20: Yahweh instructs Israel that, when attacking Canaanite cities, they are to leave alive nothing that breathes.
  6. Numbers 31: Yahweh orders Israel to wage war against Midian, killing the men, boys and non-virgin women and taking the virgin girls as spoils.
  7. Joshua 6: Yahweh commands the destruction of Jericho, in which Israel kills men, women, children and all livestock.
  8. 1 Samuel 15: Yahweh commands Saul to completely destroy the Amalekites, including men, women, children and babies, and later condemns Saul for sparing their king.
  9. Joshua 10–11: Yahweh repeatedly helps Israel to destroy Canaanite populations, with the narratives describing entire cities being devoted to destruction and leaving “no survivor.”

Given this seminal text and the influence this has had on the West, you can see how literalists might consider mass murder to be part of God’s plan.

1 Like
17

Welcome.

I think both your genocides are equally as evil, ethically speaking. Both descend into the deepest stupidity and ignorance in order to generate the justifications for evil acts. They both begin with the basest of fallacies and biases, like guilt by association, and so inflict injustice on other human beings for really no good reason.

Sure, offering a victim the choice to live as your slave, convert or die, may seem more benevolent, but it still preys on blood and fear. Should the threat work, it proves in the actor the desire to relegate others to a lower status of human being, which for some is a fate worse than death.

Though genocide can be justified on extreme consequentialist grounds, that only proves the poverty and danger of consequentialism. No matter what the consequentialist tells himself, and no matter how many lives he believes he has saved (a counterfactual belief), the action taken is still murder and the end result is mass death.

2 Likes
18

Greetings and welcome.

Reading your text, a thought occurred to me: what if hostility toward another group—whether based on skin color, language, skull shape, or even differing values ​​and worldviews—is a more “natural” human state than tolerance, which is a product of enlightenment, philosophy, and the like?

I am not making a definitive claim, but if one looks at the history of human development, that is the conclusion one might reach first.

However, I am personally critical of any “genealogy” of this sort, because the study of origins often involves smuggling in notions of how things ought to be under the guise of describing how they were.

Let us try looking at this from a slightly different angle. Consider this question: why is modern humanity intolerant of genocide (at least in terms of rhetoric)? Is it merely a matter of empathy or ideology, or is there a deeper mechanism at play?

Strictly speaking, if we are to believe anthropologists, our species once possessed far greater genetic diversity: there were Neanderthals, Denisovans, the so-called “Hobbits,” and so on. None of them survived to the present day. The exact reasons remain unknown. Possibilities include assimilation, genocide, or an inability to adapt to changing conditions.

All this leads to the hypothesis that human differences are gradually blurring over time. Groups that are radically different from others tend to disappear (for various reasons). In the era of horse-drawn carriages, committing genocide was difficult for a simple reason: it took a long time to reach a vastly different community. Today, however, aircraft fly at supersonic speeds, allowing two communities to wage war—and even exterminate one another—while separated by vast distances. Furthermore, the ideologies of neighboring states can differ radically from one another, driven by modern political technologies.

There are many assumptions here. However, one of Fukuyama’s key ideas was precisely that “democracies do not go to war with each other”—from which one might infer that the universalization of values ​​would, at the very least, reduce the likelihood of genocide.

What can be said if we attempt to synthesize all this dialectically? Over time—with the accelerating momentum of the “war chariot” and the rapid evolution of political thought, alongside the increasing intermingling of diverse groups—the world will inevitably tend toward a reduction of differences between these groups. Incidentally, this “smoothing out” of differences is currently being hindered more by artificial means than by natural ones. We are not yet at the “end of history,” and likely not even at its midpoint.

But why must the world necessarily “tend toward a reduction of differences”? After all, this conclusion does not follow directly from my premises. Indeed, it does not necessarily follow; right now, groups could dig in to preserve their uniqueness and continue perpetrating genocide—a state of affairs that could persist for quite some time, sustained in part by artificial means.

This brings us to the very concept of “genocide” as a safeguard—a mechanism that restrains us from resorting to such a simple solution for resolving disagreements. Yet, we must acknowledge that the concept of “genocide” is both an ideal and a construct. Like any ideal or construct, it is constantly challenged by various individuals and states (after all, genocide continues to occur on Earth to this day).

As recently as 15 or 20 years ago, it seemed that the world was inevitably moving toward greater universalization. People were beginning to understand one another better, the internet allowed us to maintain a dialogue across vast distances, and war between major powers seemed all but impossible. Today, we realize that this is not the case. However, crises are also a temporary phenomenon. It may well be that emerging from them requires a generational shift, with those who replace the older generation taking a different view of humanity’s problems—perhaps embracing ideas of greater tolerance or even increased engagement.

For now, however, it is premature for us to discuss genocide. Indeed, it would be best to avoid redefining the concept and to continue prosecuting the perpetrators of genocide. We are not yet ready to make any serious changes.

1 Like
19

Can there be grey areas as far as right and wrong are concerned? (BTW, I am Canadian)

In Gaza, according to the UN, we see the deliberate targeting of children.

Here are some findings in the commission’s latest report:

  • Israel has killed 20,000 children and injured 44,000 more since 7 October 2023
  • Severe physical and mental injuries, mass trauma, orphanhood, separation, disability, repeated displacements, starvation and the collapse of education and healthcare have erased childhood and will continue to affect children in Gaza throughout their lives
  • Palestinian children have been arrested and subjected to torture and other severe forms of mistreatment in Israeli prisons and detention facilities, with no information on their whereabouts
  • Israeli security forces have used sexual violence against children as part of the collective shaming and oppression, entrenched within a prolonged, ethnic, gendered and intergenerational pattern of occupation and hostilities

So while Just War Theory (see below) justifies the killing of civilians if they are the unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target, that’s not what is happening in Gaza

1. A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

2. A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

3. A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient–see the next point). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

4. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

5. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

6. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

7. The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

No, of course all lives are meaningful. But to blame babies for the political decisions made by adults in power seems based on something other than justice.

Here’s a conversation with Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid, who said -

… he met a group of young Israelis who expressed support for killing all Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, including babies.

Lapid made the remarks in a podcast interview, excerpts of which have circulated on social media platforms in recent days.

“I had a painful meeting with a group of very young people, and I heard from them all those statements calling for killing everyone and claiming that there are no innocents,” Lapid said.

He said he asked them: “Even babies?”

According to Lapid, they replied: “Babies too, because eventually they will grow up and become terrorists.”

This seems a propagation of hate, not justice.

20

My thoughts go to the Covid pandemic, and the ones who refused to get vaccinated. Should there have been some severe punishment for them?