fleetmouse wrote:If you believe it is your duty and obligation to carry out the holocaust then you must do so regardless of your distaste for the consequences. "I was only following orders!"
And if you think consequential ethics would allow the holocaust, you must think the holocaust has desirable consequences, which would make you one sick pup. Do you think the virtual eradication of a people is a desirable consequence, meta?
That's what a lot of people think, that it doesn't matter either way it works the same. I don't so. I think it's a lot easier to prove such things wrong with paleontological ethics than with teleological. Of course the problem there is that's sort of like using outcome to justify paleontology.
It is not the case anyone can think anything is justified merely becuase it can put into a duty-obligation format.
And if you think consequential ethics would allow the holocaust, you must think the holocaust has desirable consequences, which would make you one sick pup. Do you think the virtual eradication of a people is a desirable consequence, meta?
that argument is a non starter. think about it, one can also say "If you think it's our duty to murder six million people you are one sick pup."
The concept suggests itself in describing the horror (we are better off as a whole without this group). To those who think consequentially that as a certain appeal. Vice verse (It's out duty to eradicate bad people).
Yet the idea of persecuting a minority to help out the majority is the basis of he greatest good for the greatest number. To say that irradiating the trouble makers is the basis of duty and obligation is just negative thinking. Why assume all duties and obligations revolve around hurting some group?