Was the eradication of smallpox/rinderpest genocide against a species?

[dutchfire]

I'm not that convinced that what makes this morally okay is a self-defence argument. I bet Hitler claimed he was defending the German people too.

 

[Cheetah]

In the ridiculous event that Hitler was right - i.e. that the Jews were somehow out to destroy the Germans/Aryans, would you say it was immoral of him to try and exterminate the Jews?

Of course, this is leaving aside any other possible actions he could have taken, like culturicide, deportation (to Palestine perhaps? Lots of Sionists would probably cooperate with him) or a "peace treaty" with the Jews (Hey, if there actually was an evil conspiracy, then there should also be someone to negotiate a non-aggression pact with too!)...

 

[innonimatu]

Forever. This thing used to be a blight, and a cause of personal horror so strong that we can barely imagine it in our modern lives. And now, it's gone. Why? We did it.

You may be partying too soon, there are still samples around. More, I'm sure, than the two officially acknowledged. Still, it was undoubtedly a shinning moment in out history as a species, that we could put an end to that virus in the wild. Would that others were also eradicated, but the world is so divided now that I don't think new successes will come soon. Division has its drawbacks.

And this thread, starting with what was either a joke question or a very foolish one, should have gone in the other forum!

 

[Dachs]

deportation (to Palestine perhaps? Lots of Sionists would probably cooperate with him)

Madagascar.

 

[Hygro]

Let's spice things up a notch: replace smallpox with HIV virus and apply morality there. (Not a hypothetical, as the H. Father proposes not using condoms.)

Let's add another notch, if we are going to less harmful viruses, and go with the common cold.

 

[Flying Pig]

In the ridiculous event that Hitler was right - i.e. that the Jews were somehow out to destroy the Germans/Aryans, would you say it was immoral of him to try and exterminate the Jews?

Of course, this is leaving aside any other possible actions he could have taken, like culturicide, deportation (to Palestine perhaps? Lots of Sionists would probably cooperate with him) or a "peace treaty" with the Jews (Hey, if there actually was an evil conspiracy, then there should also be someone to negotiate a non-aggression pact with too!)...

The argument against gassing Jews is that Jews have feelings, and so suffer when you gas them - smallpox viruses don't suffer when you vaccinate against them. Whether it's moral to eradicate mosquitos though, I don't know. I'm even less sure whether it's strictly moral to eradicate rats, or badgers, because they spread disease: I am convinced that there are times that we should do it, out of self-interest, but not that we are morally correct to do so.

 

[Cheetah]

The argument against gassing Jews is that Jews have feelings, and so suffer when you gas them - smallpox viruses don't suffer when you vaccinate against them. Whether it's moral to eradicate mosquitos though, I don't know. I'm even less sure whether it's strictly moral to eradicate rats, or badgers, because they spread disease: I am convinced that there are times that we should do it, out of self-interest, but not that we are morally correct to do so.

This is a curious reply...

On the one hand, I have to say that it comes off as extremely cold hearted to reduce the morality of the destruction of beings down to whether or not they can feel it! We're still talking about destroying a culture, race or specie. And the fact that cows have feelings don't stop me from killing and eating them. Neither would the feelings of someone trying to harm me prevent me from killing them in self-defence.

And did you actually intend to argue that we are allowed to commit immoral actions as long as it serves our self-interest, if only at certain times?

I find it hard to argue that self-defence is immoral though.

 

[Flying Pig]

I'm trying to find a distinguishing factor between eradicating an international Jewish conspiracy and a smallpox virus, or eradicating bears - it's actually quite difficult! This may be one of those times that we must accept that our understanding of the world isn't coherent, because we don't understand all of it; as such, we end up with seemingly irrational positions.

 

[Cheetah]

Irrational positions can just as easily grow out from our feelings.

And let's face it, no matter how civilised and rational you are, you are still more related to bears than a virus, and way more related to Jews (against what a Nazi would think, we're the same specie). It's only natural that you would have more qualms over eliminating either Jews or bears than a virus. The fact that you can't even see the virus with your own eyes, and only relate to it through proximate causes (when you or someone you know is sick), makes it even more foreign. Though you're at least old enough to have gotten the vaccine for smallpox. For me it's practically a theoretical subject.

Still, if they were out to get you, would it - should it! - really matter whether they are Jews or bears or smallpox viruses? If eradication was the only option that is.

 

[El_Machinae]

This is a curious reply...

On the one hand, I have to say that it comes off as extremely cold hearted to reduce the morality of the destruction of beings down to whether or not they can feel it! We're still talking about destroying a culture, race or specie. And the fact that cows have feelings don't stop me from killing and eating them. Neither would the feelings of someone trying to harm me prevent me from killing them in self-defence.

And did you actually intend to argue that we are allowed to commit immoral actions as long as it serves our self-interest, if only at certain times?

I find it hard to argue that self-defence is immoral though.

I find it not cold-hearted at all! A lot of vegetarianism is based off of the concept of animal feelings. The reason why we sedate cattle before slaughter is based off of animal feelings.

 

[Cheetah]

I find it not cold-hearted at all! A lot of vegetarianism is based off of the concept of animal feelings. The reason why we sedate cattle before slaughter is based off of animal feelings.

Yes we do. And I'm all for it. I don't want to create unnecessary suffering to feed my meat-obsession.

But we still kill the cattle, and we still eat it!

You simply expanded the cold-hearted argument to say that as long as the evil Jews are sedated, it is fully permissible to gas them, as then they won't feel anything when they die!

And what if it could be proven that some humans don't have the feelings in question? Psychopaths don't have empathy for instance. If someone lacks whatever feelings would make it wrong to kill them, would it then be alright to kill them?

 

[El_Machinae]

No, I didn't suggest that euthanizing the Jews is acceptable with anesthetic. You could assume that I am okay with eradicating the Jews if the process doesn't hurt their feelings too much. My nigh-constant haranguing regarding the falseness of the Moses myth is even evidence that I'm implicitly okay with some of those efforts.

But feelings are absolutely part of our morality calculus.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Viruses aren't sentient. They're not even organisms!

 

[Farm Boy]

The reason why we sedate cattle before slaughter is based off of animal feelings.

Quibble quibble quibble.... stun rather than sedate is probably a better word, as we wouldn't want confusion regarding poisoning the meat with sedative chemicals immediately before slaughter. Also, are you sure that's why we do it? You can't just open a cow up and let it bleed out very easily, it would be not unlikely to cause damage to its surrounds if not properly restrained and at the very least would probably bruise the meat. We don't stun chickens since they're small enough to easily restrain, we just take a page from long history and decide that hanging them upside down and beheading is pretty fast and humane compared to the alternatives. Plus, it lets you drain and save the blood. A use for everything that is useful!

My grandfather kept a lot of chickens. My dad still can't stand thinking too much about wooden stumps and hatchets.

 

[Flying Pig]

Quibble quibble quibble.... stun rather than sedate is probably a better word, as we wouldn't want confusion regarding poisoning the meat with sedative chemicals immediately before slaughter. Also, are you sure that's why we do it? You can't just open a cow up and let it bleed out very easily, it would be not unlikely to cause damage to its surrounds if not properly restrained and at the very least would probably bruise the meat. We don't stun chickens since they're small enough to easily restrain, we just take a page from long history and decide that hanging them upside down and beheading is pretty fast and humane compared to the alternatives. Plus, it lets you drain and save the blood. A use for everything that is useful!

My grandfather kept a lot of chickens. My dad still can't stand thinking too much about wooden stumps and hatchets.

Halal butchery does just that, and has served a huge chunk of the world's population for centuries.

 

[Farm Boy]

Halal butchery does just that, and has served a huge chunk of the world's population for centuries.

You can do it. Small scale butchery and specialized butchery still will. But if you are running a larger operation and you are trying to be efficient about it you aren't going to do it Halal-style. It's just easier to stun the cow than deal with it bleeding out while unstunned.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

This is a curious reply...

On the one hand, I have to say that it comes off as extremely cold hearted to reduce the morality of the destruction of beings down to whether or not they can feel it!

What else should be grounds for opposing it? That really ain't rocket science. Feelings are the only source of meaning to begin with. Meaning does only start to even exist when enabled by feelings and ends the moment feeling cease. Beyond the realm of feelings, there is no point to anything. Accordingly, beyond the realm of feelings, morality is an absurd concept.
As a conclusion, it is absurd to establish moral considerations for things that don't feel. Just makes no sense whatsoever. Which means, feelings are the only thing giving morality a leg to stand on. If your fundamental moral argument doesn't come down to some kind agenda based on feelings, you have no argument at all.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: The nature of the posts seems to edge this thread into tavern suitability.

 

[El_Machinae]

Quibble quibble quibble.... stun rather than sedate is probably a better word, as we wouldn't want confusion regarding poisoning the meat with sedative chemicals immediately before slaughter. Also, are you sure that's why we do it? You can't just open a cow up and let it bleed out very easily, it would be not unlikely to cause damage to its surrounds if not properly restrained and at the very least would probably bruise the meat. We don't stun chickens since they're small enough to easily restrain, we just take a page from long history and decide that hanging them upside down and beheading is pretty fast and humane compared to the alternatives. Plus, it lets you drain and save the blood. A use for everything that is useful!

My grandfather kept a lot of chickens. My dad still can't stand thinking too much about wooden stumps and hatchets.

You're entirely correct.