If natural rights do not exist...

[Black_Zawisza]

...and are simply privileges granted by society, was Hitler wrong in gassing innocent people? If so, why?

 

[the makeout hobo]

...and are simply privileges granted by society, was Hitler wrong in gassing innocent people? If so, why?

He was wrong because gassing people encourages several behaviors and actions that are bad for society as a whole, and several people in general. If society stops treating any life as special and protected, it's too easy for all life to stop being treated thus. If he can gas jews, that's behavior that hurts everyone in society, and will in the future be used specifically on aryans. I don't know how coherent this is, but I hope you get my point.

 

[Orion]

If you want to talk about this in terms of natural rights, Hitler wasn't right or wrong, he just lost. If the Nazis took over, in a few generations anti-semitism would probably become the new form of correctness.

Morals and rights always pertain to whoever has the power and will to implement them. That is all.

 

[spud_meister]

...and are simply privileges granted by society, was Hitler wrong in gassing innocent people? If so, why?

if you look at it from a christian perspective, there are no innocent people, so was hitler still wrong?

 

[Black_Zawisza]

He was wrong because gassing people encourages several behaviors and actions that are bad for society as a whole, and several people in general. If society stops treating any life as special and protected, it's too easy for all life to stop being treated thus. If he can gas jews, that's behavior that hurts everyone in society, and will in the future be used specifically on aryans. I don't know how coherent this is, but I hope you get my point.

You're begging the question. Why is hurting society wrong?

If you want to talk about this in terms of natural rights, Hitler wasn't right or wrong, he just lost. If the Nazis took over, in a few generations anti-semitism would probably become the new form of correctness.

Morals and rights always pertain to whoever has the power and will to implement them. That is all.

So if you were on an island in international water, where you had no fear of legal retribution, would you rape a defenseless woman? Why not?

if you look at it from a christian perspective, there are no innocent people, so was hitler still wrong?

Dude, come on. You know what I mean. Civilians.

 

[the makeout hobo]

You're begging the question. Why is hurting society wrong?

Because I'm part of society. I don't want to be hurt. If it's ok for other people to be hurt, it'll too easily lead to me being hurt. Plus, systematic butchery of people is going to have several other negative effects on society that would impact me (can you imagine how hard it'd be to get a good bagel in 1943 Berlin?)

Dude, come on. You know what I mean. Civilians.

Hitler didn't consider them civilians. They were part of the Jewish Conspiracy, so therefore traitors

 

[spud_meister]

Dude, come on. You know what I mean. Civilians.

sorry, just wanted to be a smart arse.

but to answer your question seriously, it was wrong because it was morally reprehensible, morals exists separately of rights, and separately of religion, and as Orion said, because we won, we were able to subject his actions to our morals.

 

[Mustachio]

...and are simply privileges granted by society, was Hitler wrong in gassing innocent people? If so, why?

Yes, because we've always been at war with Eastasia

 

[the makeout hobo]

For those of you who think natural rights exist as a function of nature: show me one. Show me an atom of "right to life" or a molecule of "right to property"

 

[the makeout hobo]

Yes, because we've always been at war with Eastasia

You mean Eurasia, right?

 

[reefedjib]

Natural rights exist independent of nature. They are morally derived. Hitler violated them.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

So if you were on an island in international water, where you had no fear of legal retribution, would you rape a defenseless woman? Why not?

No, because I am the source of all morality. The law is nothing more than a tool to impose my morals upon others.

 

[reefedjib]

No, because I am the source of all morality. The law is nothing more than a tool to impose my morals upon others.

No, no, I am the source of all morality. Natural rights, founded upon my inner moral relativism, is the basis upon which laws are made. Natural rights are not defined by laws.

 

[molten_dragon]

...and are simply privileges granted by society, was Hitler wrong in gassing innocent people? If so, why?

In my views, yes it was wrong. He obviously thought it was right though.

The problem with this question is that right and wrong are subjective too.

 

[tacomancer]

The nazis doing what they did was wrong because it violates my moral sensibilities.

 

[WingsOfDesire]

Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. - Rousseau

A lot of the thinkers that tackled the Social Contract delved into the idea of what it means to be a natural man. More often then not you'll find they felt killing was only justified if a person was physically inhibiting on your natural right to live. But that was always in a state of nature. The rules change when you live in a society.

 

[Orion]

So if you were on an island in international water, where you had no fear of legal retribution, would you rape a defenseless woman? Why not?

I wouldn't, but that's only because I was raised with the morals to not do that. Maybe if I grew up in the wilderness, separate from human society, I would behave more like an animal with no morals... in which case rape might be little more than simple reproduction to me. Who knows though.

 

[tacomancer]

I guess I will throw my hat into this post. Sorry if I am intruding.

You're begging the question. Why is hurting society wrong?

A hamonious society is a better place to live in. Nobody would thrive in chaos. Plus, if you happen to generally like people, you would not want to do them harm in a personal or general sense.

So if you were on an island in international water, where you had no fear of legal retribution, would you rape a defenseless woman? Why not?

The thought of causing harm to another person horrifies me and would give me no pleasure.

 

[Ikari]

...and are simply privileges granted by society, was Hitler wrong in gassing innocent people? If so, why?

If there were truly no natural rights, what Hitler did wouldn't have morally been wrong (there could be no absolute morality without natural rights). But even by his culture at the time, he would have been wrong for the mass killings he inspired. Though he was in charge and people feared him; so he was able to get away with it. And I guess he got to define the law. So morally and legally he did nothing wrong. Along accepted social terms, however, he was still wrong.

 

[Mustachio]

You mean Eurasia, right?

Oh, right, it was yesterday that we were always at war with Eastasia, today we've always been at war with Eurasia. My mistake.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

...and are simply privileges granted by society, was Hitler wrong in gassing innocent people? If so, why?

AFAIK Hitler didn't gas anyone. The NAZI party did, as well as their state apparatus.

Moreover, to impose morality on such broad events is somewhat fruitless. States protect/further their own interests. Morality has little if nothing to do with that.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

If there were truly no natural rights, what Hitler did wouldn't have morally been wrong (there could be no absolute morality without natural rights).

There are other forms of morality besides your liberal conceptions of natural rights.

 

[Ikari]

There are other forms of morality besides your liberal conceptions of natural rights.

Oh, look at Mr. I Don't Read the Entire Post there. I'm pretty sure I brought up social constructs and legal "morality" as well Mr. I Didn't Make it to the End of Your Post and Just Made This on Knee Jerk Reaction. So shove that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Oh, look at Mr. I Don't Read the Entire Post there. I'm pretty sure I brought up social constructs and legal "morality" as well Mr. I Didn't Make it to the End of Your Post and Just Made This on Knee Jerk Reaction. So shove that in your pipe and smoke it.

There are other forms of absolute morality besides your liberal notions. I was responding to the entire section I quoted, including the paranthetical.