Philosopher's Guild: Everyone is Welcome to Gather and Discuss

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

I'm not sure there is a such thing as a "greater good"...Good, or value is only applicable to individual living organisms and cannot(in my mind) be ascribed to an aggregate of relationships.
Other than that I agree.

What about Jeremy Bentham's alteration from the "greater good" to the 'greatest amount of happiness'? Does that change your answer?

 

[Kenny West]

I don't know how far you want to go down the Nazi rabbit hole, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss their perception of Jewishness. I've nerded out on Nazi history so if you're interested:

Spoiler

He makes clear in his books and speeches that he felt wiping out "Jewry" would be good for the entire human race...that German predominance in continental Europe would set the earth back on track, and be a benefit to all humanity. And, its not really that they were superhuman or supernatural.....they were more para-human. Something different. An ultra-nationalist believed humanity is created to serve their nation (not state...nation, i.e., ethnicity/race/etc.) Jews and communists were thus not human because they didnt adhere to a nation...they were internationalists...they were committed to ideas that were expressly anti-nationalist, and therefore anti-human. Ridding the world of them would benefit all....not only Germany. It helped, of course, that all those people were also Slavs who were nation-less as well. To the Nazis, Judaism and Communism were parasites or diseases to humanity that had to be stopped. And...to be fair...America felt the same exact way about Communism for a long time after WW2....we're only now beginning to move away from it...slowly.

Sure there were probably a large portion of Nazis that were just evil fukks (and it was a time when business was good for evil fukks to flourish), but I dont think you could sell a nation of millions on just being evil fukks....causing pain/death/destruction for the sake of pain/death/destruction. Their argument was that Judeo-Bolshivism was a scourge to humanity, caused World War 1 (which was a nightmare that they all lived through), and causes the disastrous treaty that ended it. A treaty that threatened the entire world (to them), not just Germany.

I think you are being naive taking those words at face value. I dont buy it. This larger than life bs talk is rehtorical fluff for the purpose you hinted at with the bolded. nikkas are simply acting om conquest directed by hate. All that save the world talk is contradicted by their own actions and previous theories on race.

shyt is just grandiose fluff to justify sending men to their death in pursuit of a conquest of Europe. They had to jump to saving the world bs when the whole aryan thing gets side eyed by the time the join up with non aryans like the Italians.

Its like beleving the Crusades was really about bringing god's salvation to the world rather than that just being a prentense used for Catholic leadership to pursue conquest.

And, you talk about retribution, but even the concept of retribution is questionable w/r/t morality.
Is it eye for an eye or turn the other cheek?

I'd say turn the other cheek would be more in line with adhering to absolute morality. But for us humans leaving some situations as is leaves a bad taste in our mouths. Everything about that portion of morality is subjective.

Often times I think society establishes moral codes that is directly against our human nature in the name of a functioning society. If all humans are naturally predisposed to seek vengeance on those that harm their children...then it must be moral to do so. Human society has decided, though, that what's best is for society to decided what that retribution should be. And, if the state fails to achieve that retribution (mistrial, wrongly accused, etc.) then you just have to accept it. Are you then acting immorally if you don't handle it yourself?

Here you started going off the rails and drew a lot of conclusions my argument never supported the underlined in particular.

According to the absolute morality discussion vengance is a bad moral act. Inflicting pain is bad in a objective sense. The rationalizations for vengeful pain though are the easiest for us to empathize with and respect but the term "2 wrongs dont make a right" exists for a reason.

So to answer your last question no, its the opposite. but it just isnt a decision most people want to make. People do irl ( forgiving killers), but that dynamic is usually reserved for super hero's who let the villain go for the 60th time cause killing is wrong. Thats the most moral choice but you'd have to be detached from any anger from how they wronged you and most folks just arent capable of that.

In A Time to Kill, was Samuel L Jackson acting morally or immorally when he smoked the dudes who killed/raped his daughter? Could you really say either answer is objectively right/wrong?

Yes, because killing is wrong. If this wasnt acknowledged he wouldnt be seeking revenge in the first place. I never seen the movie but sam jack would still be punished for the murder.

But with that said I would accept his rationalization behind it. I would give him a slap on the wrist. Rationalizations dont change an immoral act to a moral one, just whether or not you will allow it.

 

[DEAD7]

What about Jeremy Bentham's alteration from the "greater good" to the 'greatest amount of happiness'? Does that change your answer?

No...Greater good/happiness, to me is a way of morally justifying throwing some individuals in the bushes... and in America its rarely rich white men.
There is no such entity as "the public" just individuals.