Message from @OnyxM
Discord ID: 462853975591485442
How was it good?
Good for their society
It's essentially a complicated way of committing suicide
To further the good of the society by your own will
When Muslim aggression began, what we now call Turkey was under Byzantine Christian Orthodox rule
So was the Holy Land in fact
So would you say there was any benefit? To this day everything except a tiny sliver of the Holy Land is under Muslim rule
And the little piece that isn't, was liberated by the British
In that situation it was immoral because there was nothing gained
By anyone
Only bad done to themselves
So it was bad for them to fight the Muslims?
Yes it is generally bad to fight a fight you cant win to the death
I don't believe you have answered me yet, Ehzek. So I will repeat myself: by your logic, if someone committed mass murder and through it became successful, does that mean that they have done no moral negative and are in fact in the right?
So by your own definition, if you do not succeed in doing good, then you are doing bad.
Which would also make true, that if you do not succeed in doing bad, then you have not done bad
No mass murder would be wrong because there is no benefit
Wrong
It doesnt matter if they were never caught
There is benefit, that hypothetical person became successful through it.
It benefited China, it benefited Germany
But that hurt the others it is wrong
It was done out of want not necessity
But it helped a lot more than it hurt
Well if their goal was to help china and germany then it was moral
If not it is an unintended benefit of their immorality
German population is 82 million now. Only about 11 million died in the Holocaust. Therefore a small fraction for the greater good
So, mass slaughter if they mean well, is moral?
Yes it was absolutely with the intent of helping the country
If people pick fights with you constantly and you end up killing them all that would be moral
Provided you aren't inciting them
Population of China is 1.4 billion. Only 72 million died from communism. About 6%. The other 94% benefited from it.
But that requires the immorality on them
For them to be attempting murder
Children and infants included?
They were picking fights?
In reference to onyx
The communists arent wholly moral because of its forced nature
You said "if their goal was to help China and Germany then it was moral", thus you are inferring--unless you are not, in which case you should clarify--that mass slaughter with well intentions is completely fine and moral
How do you *not* see the flaw in that?