Wrong

It doesnt matter if they were never caught

There is benefit, that hypothetical person became successful through it.

You cannot ignore that detail.

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?

Specify the force in Chinese Communism

However as they are moving from a deeper evil it is still more moral than what they had

Its still evil just less so

But to make this debate fair, as you know, I married one of them. The daughter of a very high ranking government official. So I have intimate knowledge of what happened. The only people who know more, most of them are dead.

There is no flaw onyx

Why is it evil?

Because of the forced loss on them

There is flaw, you are suggesting that mass slaughter of innocents is moral.

I said its on a spectrum and that it was more moral than what they had

It doesn't matter under what context, under what corruption of logic you try to argue, mass slaughter of innocents is Wrong. It is Evil. To say it is not, is absolutely morally bankrupt and heinous.

You typically cant skip to perfect morality

And its unreasonable to think so

Forced loss of a few, but the benefit of many millions more

That is the only reason it seems relative

Another good example is Aktion T4

In your view it's moral to kill the disabled and handicapped because they are a drain on resources and thus harm society