Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    Someone mentioned Rwanda, well, you can point the finger at the UN for that...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silent p......?)
    I'd say take it one country at a time, and in a purely logical manner, the highest prority is given to countries that are more dangerous (not african), and has more benefits (oil, contracts), and in a couple of hundred years there'l be no more genocide. America can't start a war on every dictatorship because of public opinion.
    They'll always be genocide.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    You might not be interested in war, but war is interested in you. If you aren't willing to start wars, other countries will destroy yours. This has nothing to do with human nature. It's the reality of the international political system.
    Uhuh Sherlock.

    But that isn't the question.

    Just because it happens, does that make it morally justified?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silent p......?)
    I think it's the other way round, in the long term anyway, a small minority "240 million" which means that people in germany aren't being sent to deathcamps today and in the future and also in the rest of the world if no one stood up to Hitler, there would have been a lot more then died in the war.
    There wouldn't be anybody to send to death camps today would they? Had Hitler continued the remaining Jews, gypsies etc in Europe would have been dead by 1948. Right here and now in the year 2006 I should think the number of people being sent to European death camps (if they even still existed) would be very few indeed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    They'll always be genocide.
    Depends on the time frame, in short term, 100-200 years certainly there will be, but after that if everything goes as planned and the world doesn't get destoyed under the weight of apocalyptic theories and tabloid headlines then there may be too much interaction and movement for genocide to be possible.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silent p......?)
    Depends on the time frame, in short term, 100-200 years certainly there will be, but after that if everything goes as planned and the world doesn't get destoyed under the weight of apocalyptic theories and tabloid headlines then there may be too much interaction and movement for genocide to be possible.
    And you base this utopian idea on what?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    There wouldn't be anybody to send to death camps today would they? Had Hitler continued the remaining Jews, gypsies etc in Europe would have been dead by 1948. Right here and now in the year 2006 I should think the number of people being sent to European death camps (if they even still existed) would be very few indeed.
    Hitler ultimately wanted a global empire, I don't know how many people aren't of northern european origion, but I think its less then 2 billion out of the 6.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    And you base this utopian idea on what?
    The general increase in mixed races,democracies and intelligence. Also the increase in entertainment, with entertainment people don't resort to politics as much.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silent p......?)
    The general increase in mixed races,democracies and intelligence. Also the increase in entertainment, with entertainment people don't resort to politics as much.
    There were far more instances of genocide and ethnic cleansing in the 1990s than there were at any time in modern history, and this despite that period having the highest level of interaction and movement of people in history. Interaction increases the amount of potential conflicts, not the reverse.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    It's a ridiculous question. If something must happen, then it's useless to discuss its merits. Is it moral to breathe?



    I'd hate to go off on a tangent, but there were only about 150,000 Jews in Germany in '39; Hitler would never be able to kill 6 million Jews unless he invaded Poland and the Soviet Union.
    OK. Point taken. I know my history and stats are a bit lop sided here but the point I am really driving at is morally how many people is it acceptable to sacrifice for the benefit of others.

    Humor me for a moment if you will. Imagine a country had 6 million jews in it but had no intention of expanding its geographical borders. It's leader set about systematically killing all those jews and the outside world got to hear about it.

    Imagine that the generals from the outside world did the math and calculated that the cost of invasion of this country (to stop this killing) would risk a domino effect regional war with a death toll of 120million.

    In these "Howard's fictional" circumstances would it be more morally acceptable to invade this country and risk the lives of 120 million or do nothing?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    There were far more instances of genocide and ethnic cleansing in the 1990s than there were at any time in modern history, and this despite that period having the highest level of interaction and movement of people in history. Interaction increases the amount of potential conflicts, not the reverse.
    That was probably the top of the genocide curve, before people didn't live with different people, so had to go out of their ways to start a fight a few hundred miles away, and now it will go in decline.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silent p......?)
    Depends on the time frame, in short term, 100-200 years certainly there will be, but after that if everything goes as planned and the world doesn't get destoyed under the weight of apocalyptic theories and tabloid headlines then there may be too much interaction and movement for genocide to be possible.

    By who?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    By who?
    I mean the world isn't destroyed, so God or humanity depending on your view.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silent p......?)
    That was probably the top of the genocide curve, before people didn't live with different people, so had to go out of their ways to start a fight a few hundred miles away, and now it will go in decline.
    Go read some Yugoslav history. The Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians have been living together and intermarrying for decades; this didn't prevent each side from trying to wipe out the other. Same goes with the Tutsi and the Hutu in Rwanda.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Genocides that could have been prevented with much less blood were allowed to take place.
    Any idea of an acceptable sacrifice/victim ratio?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    OK. Point taken. I know my history and stats are a bit lop sided here but the point I am really driving at is morally how many people is it acceptable to sacrifice for the benefit of others.

    Humor me for a moment if you will. Imagine a country had 6 million jews in it but had no intention of expanding its geographical borders. It's leader set about systematically killing all those jews and the outside world got to hear about it.

    Imagine that the generals from the outside world did the math and calculated that the cost of invasion of this country (to stop this killing) would risk a domino effect regional war with a death toll of 120million.

    In these "Howard's fictional" circumstances would it be more morally acceptable to invade this country and risk the lives of 120 million or do nothing?
    They could always impose trade sanctions, cut the country off politically.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Any idea of an acceptable sacrifice/victim ratio?
    I don't think anyone really takes into account the amount of victims. Genocides are stopped only if the perceived sacrifice is tiny, since realistically speaking, no benefits are derived from preventing a genocide.

    (Original post by silent p......?)
    They could always impose trade sanctions, cut the country off politically.
    Because we all know how well this worked in Bosnia. Or Italy if you want to go further back.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Go read some Yugoslav history. The Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians have been living together and intermarrying for decades; this didn't prevent each side from trying to wipe out the other. Same goes with the Tutsi and the Hutu in Rwanda.
    But if the majority of people were a bit of everything then you wouldn't be able to commit genocide, soldiers would be killing their "own" people. It's nto just that, its the increase of wealth in all countries that should lead to less interest in politics.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silent p......?)
    But if the majority of people were a bit of everything then you wouldn't be able to commit genocide, soldiers would be killing their "own" people. It's nto just that, its the increase of wealth in all countries that should lead to less interest in politics.
    Go find some pictures of Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks, and tell me if you can see any difference. I don't see increased wealth doing much to end the Basque insurgency in Spain and France.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silent p......?)
    They could always impose trade sanctions, cut the country off politically.
    How would that help? Do you think our fictional Hitler would give a toss? This is a man who is busy systematically gassing 6 million people at a rate of 50,000 a day. I don't think a sharp rebuke from the UN is going to lose him much sleep.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.