Let's not forget that the US has a death penalty, which is morally repugnant in most civilised countries. — charleton

What I meant to articulate was such that killing without a basis, without meaning. Meaningless killing so to speak. If we lived in a world where such a standard was morally thought to be ok then who are we to say one standardized moral is above another based off the premise that in a world where meaningless killing is deemed ok, then we as people would have a completely different moral compass as opposed to now, because we wold not know otherwise.

Also leads back my previous argument, suggesting the majority cannot always be right.

What if we perhaps say completely reversed the world.

In the sense that there was a world in which existed such that hitler helped and cared for the Jews. Gave hospitality and provided for them, protected them?

And then the rest of the world, lived in a morality that suggested otherwise, that Jews were horrible people and should never be cared for. And this idea/notion is there because that is what we know and the caring of Jews is so completely opposite to the majority’s ideology concerning the people group that hitler must be wrong? Now we, me, and most sane people of THIS world would side with hitler in this specific scenario.

But then wouldn’t we be siding with the minority compared to the majority of the civilized people of that world thereby making us in the moral wrong?

I like the biological argument, however unfortunately, while we are programmed to survive as a species there is the wall of sexual desire. In nature, the male dominates the female. There’s always an Inate sense to reproduce. Because reproducing is part of surviving. But because of modern culture, we hold this back for our ideas of personal space and consiouness and privacy. I think rape is bad because it in of itself goes against my own sense of morality in many ways. However, the application of rape directly counters the biological argument.

Selfless acts are are not selfless acts.

Every action we do on this earth, thought to action is selfish. Yes, giving away money is selfish. Donating is selfish. For even through these things, we make ourselves feel good about ourselves hence why it is selfish. Or it is selfish because we are selfish of the idea that we are in turn being humble.

Again. Morality is subjective. Hitler thought he was doing right by eliminating the Jews. The terrorists believe they are fulfilling their duty to their religion by killing others. I believe by not fighting back, I’ll accomplish more than my defending myself. This all stems from ones sense of morality to another. Because morality is subjective, Man is neither good nor bad, unless and only unless, one can clearly and simply argue for a universal sense of morality.

Morality and goodness are wholly subjective.
— charleton
Does it follow that Hitler and the Nazis were not objectively morally bad during the Holocaust, and that they were simply the minority in terms of opinion on the treatment of the Jews? — Samuel Lacrampe

As already mentioned the ideas of morality is a man made concept. Unless you personally believe there are inate ideological preferences of right and wrong that dictate the universe, then someone can’t simply choose between good or evil. Because that persons definition of good or evil would depend via the perspective instilled into them and the environment they were born into.

Hitler, hence, saw he that he was doing good by wiping out the Jews because that was within his own morality. Now for your and my own sense of morality he did bad? Absolutely! The killing of others goes against every instinct I own.

***However! If we as people grew up in a world where killing other people was deemed ok via international moral agreement then what would we know to suggest otherwise? Obviously that won’t ever happen, but slaves used to be a massive part of the international economy untill after the mid 19th century. (Still is in some parts) but this was simply due to the fact that the majority of people during the given time period thought that slavery was “Within morality”

This can easily be applied to many other principles such as homosexuality, marriage, and basic human rights. All of these concepts have evolved from a majority’s sense of “morality” because ever since the scientific revolution in the 19th century, the modern society’s of today have more or less developed in such a way that promotes progressiveness and change through the introduction and scientific proof of new ideas and concepts.

Henceforth someone’s intentions of doing good could be another persons definition of evil. Which then begs the question. Who’s in the moral right? And one cannot simply say that of in the majority, because what if the majority’s sense of right is to Kill and there’s one person that says otherwise?

I agree with Charleton, “Morality and goodness are wholly subjective.”