What most people think is good is good

[aelf]

And conversely, what most people think is bad is bad.

I've recently seen this sentiment expressed here on this forum, but it's a pretty common one, and we all probably lean on it at some point. It's much easier to push your point when you can claim that you have majority backing - it cuts down on the necessary and often fruitless effort to explain the correctness/righteousness of your position. Indeed, social change is often driven by majority support.

It seems clear to me, though, that what the majority thinks is good is not necessarily good. Even if we were to espouse some kind of utilitarian relativism (where 'good' is largely in the eye of the beholder, and therefore we should go with what most people think is good in order to maximise happiness), there can be other considerations. For example, if a majority think that large-scale human sacrifice is good, it would still be pretty impossible to defend that view from an ethical standpoint - in such cases, people are stretching the definition of 'good' beyond what typically agrees with human experience. Or if somehow this belief undermines the relativist foundation that it rests on (e.g. if you believe that individuals are not allowed to think differently from the majority regarding what is good, therefore denying relativism).

However, by-and-large, it's really difficult to argue against this line of thinking. As I mentioned, it's very convenient. Plenty of intelligent people believe it, and it takes way too much effort to resist the majority. It can also be an uphill moral battle, fraught with the danger of being accused of elitism and intellectual arrogance. On the other hand, acceding to this means not going against the majority, and by way of corollary, it means not challenging any democratically-made decision.

Personally, due to my experience living where I am, I'm increasingly finding it too tiring to fight against the majority, and it's pretty much impossible to win anyway. So my attitude is becoming more of "Well, knock yourselves out. And if you suffer for it later, that's too bad."

Thoughts? How do you approach a situation where the majority disagrees with what you think on an important matter?

 

[Berzerker]

most people know whats good when bad is being done to them

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that most people should just do what i need to be done. It is why i created a paypal account.
Sadly they seem to only care about what they want.

 

[bernie14]

Question my insights and judgment.... question their insights and judgment....when they get defensive and insulting, troll them for fun....importance is also relative

 

[Hygro]

I think it’s true that what most people think is good Is often good etc but there’s no guarantee, nor is popularity any kind of foundational evidence.

I get a lot of downvotes on reddit when I know what I’m talking about.

I get my upvotes that way as well.

Let’s pretend reddit is representational ;(

 

[H4run]

I questioned my intention sometime do I care more about the right things to happened or winning an argument with stubborn people(s) for the sake of my ego? If I want the right thing to be implemented I need to learn to be patience for the timing and learn to step back when necessary swallowing the bitter pill; but if I care more about winning the argument I should step forward just to prove my point that people are wrong and may win nothing in the end.

I was a free person who walk in and out as I please, I never try to tolerate something that I cannot tolerate my whole life, however now I really get stuck with my job, so I must forced myself to sit and interact with people or group who I actually despised. But while working in this place I just realized that the voice of majority is kind of an illusion, there are only groups of voice that are moving around steered by certain handler, if you able to somehow convinced him or her, and many time you can just reduced it one person per group, you already have the majority's voice most of the time, I believe this is true in many form of platform, maybe including here, or maybe not here.

 

[Narz]

That's why everyone dreams of being a rock star or gangster don or president. You change the rules and other people's minds or even if you don't they learn to accept the new reality.

Arguing w other people's definitions is what you do until you can find people who can get on board w your definitions.

 

[Narz]

I questioned my intention sometime do I care more about the right things to happened or winning an argument with stubborn people(s) for the sake of my ego? If I want the right thing to be implemented I need to learn to be patience for the timing and learn to step back when necessary swallowing the bitter pill; but if I care more about winning the argument I should step forward just to prove my point that people are wrong and may win nothing in the end.

I was a free person who walk in and out as I please, I never try to tolerate something that I cannot tolerate my whole life, however now I really get stuck with my job, so I must forced myself to sit and interact with people or group who I actually despised. But while working in this place I just realized that the voice of majority is kind of an illusion, there are only groups of voice that are moving around steered by certain handler, if you able to somehow convinced him or her, and many time you can just reduced it one person per group, you already have the majority's voice most of the time, I believe this is true in many form of platform, maybe including here, or maybe not here.

People's opinions are like fashions. Just wait and theyll change, it is fun to try to alter them, as good a pastime as anything I suppose.

The money is usually in preaching to the choir tho

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Thoughts? How do you approach a situation where the majority disagrees with what you think on an important matter?

It depends on what the matter is. There have been disagreements on this forum where I wasn't in the majority, but I managed to persuade enough of them to change their minds and realize that I was right.

The latest political thing going on here is that all over the province, students walked out of class yesterday to protest the new UCP government's decision to revoke privacy protections for kids who join GSAs in schools (not to mention the decision not to force all schools receiving public funding to allow them if the students ask for them).

I guess how I approach situations is to try to persuade the other side that they should rethink their positions and try to relate it to what would be fair if they were in the shoes of the marginalized populations on whose behalf I'm speaking (I wholly approve of what these kids did, and their strike was never intended to be an all-day thing, just half an hour or so).

It's the same when I'm speaking up on behalf of marginalized voters, or other demographics. Ignoring a situation never helps. Speaking up sometimes helps a great deal. When city council decided to allow transporting pets on regular transit (subject to rules, of course), I contacted the transit department and asked why this wasn't allowed for the disabled transit users - after all, we have pets that need vet visits, too. They thought it over and said yes. So now if I need to take Maddy to the vet, I can (small pets were already allowed in taxis, subject to the driver not being allergic).

Arguing w other people's definitions is what you do until you can find people who can get on board w your definitions.

One thing people might notice if they decide to read the CBC.ca comment boards is that some left-wing supporters will use the term "Reform Conservative" or (incorrectly, but close enough) "Reformed Conservative". It pleases me greatly to see them using this phrase because I invented it. My intention was to do an end run around the unaccountable moderators on that site (as in there is literally no way to challenge their decisions) when referring to the phony "Conservative" party that was formed when the Canadian Alliance (originally called the Reform Party) hijacked the Progressive Conservatives to form the "Conservative Party of Canada."

They can call themselves whatever they want, but they are not the same as the old Progressive Conservative party; they are the same as the old Reform Party, and therefore a lot of people refer to them as "Reformacons" (a term I use here sometimes).

Some Reformacons see that as a derogatory term, and it's meant to be. It's never used in a respectful way, and sometimes it gets censored on the comment pages. My coming up with "Reform-Conservatives" is a more polite way of saying "Reformacon" and also reminds people that this party must be differentiated from the Progressive Conservatives (aka the real ones, not the ones who hijack other parties and cheat their way into power).

Once I explained this on the comment boards (about the way to differentiate the two types of conservatives) it began to resonate with some other regulars there, and they started using it.

It's my way of trying to get other Albertans/Reformacon supporters to wake up and realize they're being lied to, every single time a Reformacon opens his/her mouth and spouts some drivel about being the legitimate successors to the Progressive Conservatives.

 

[H4run]

People's opinions are like fashions. Just wait and theyll change, it is fun to try to alter them, as good a pastime as anything I suppose.

The money is usually in preaching to the choir tho

Yes being generous smooths things up, but they paid more than that. these are the guy who spending time past working hour with coworker; always having lunch together, hang out with them during holiday, going after their birthday or farewel, a guy who always maintains his string to other naturally. They always ask me to come along but I always give a thousand excuses just to able to be alone with myself and relieved after hours of works.

I cannot sacrified my solitude moment for petty stuff constantly, it kills me. While the natural leader, this voice setter, mostly work hard for their influence, their invesment to achieved that is quite a lot. Here in cfc your ideas and comment defines you, but as you already understand irl there are many other factor that influenced how people look at you and how willing they are to follow you, sometime it is more about who you are than about what your message. Hence influencing the handler it is an easier task.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And conversely, what most people think is bad is bad.

I've recently seen this sentiment expressed here on this forum, but it's a pretty common one, and we all probably lean on it at some point. It's much easier to push your point when you can claim that you have majority backing - it cuts down on the necessary and often fruitless effort to explain the correctness/righteousness of your position. Indeed, social change is often driven by majority support.

It seems clear to me, though, that what the majority thinks is good is not necessarily good. Even if we were to espouse some kind of utilitarian relativism (where 'good' is largely in the eye of the beholder, and therefore we should go with what most people think is good in order to maximise happiness), there can be other considerations. For example, if a majority think that large-scale human sacrifice is good, it would still be pretty impossible to defend that view from an ethical standpoint - in such cases, people are stretching the definition of 'good' beyond what typically agrees with human experience. Or if somehow this belief undermines the relativist foundation that it rests on (e.g. if you believe that individuals are not allowed to think differently from the majority regarding what is good, therefore denying relativism).

However, by-and-large, it's really difficult to argue against this line of thinking. As I mentioned, it's very convenient. Plenty of intelligent people believe it, and it takes way too much effort to resist the majority. It can also be an uphill moral battle, fraught with the danger of being accused of elitism and intellectual arrogance. On the other hand, acceding to this means not going against the majority, and by way of corollary, it means not challenging any democratically-made decision.

Personally, due to my experience living where I am, I'm increasingly finding it too tiring to fight against the majority, and it's pretty much impossible to win anyway. So my attitude is becoming more of "Well, knock yourselves out. And if you suffer for it later, that's too bad."

Thoughts? How do you approach a situation where the majority disagrees with what you think on an important matter?

You drew a good example, but it proves a different point. Good/right/ethical/proper...all of these are mass subjectives ie, they are determined by agreement, not any sort of objective reasoning. In the case of a majority thinking human sacrifice is good, their ethics would support their position...which may very well be appropriate for their circumstances, no matter how appalling it might appear based on our circumstances. What most people don't catch is that in societies where human sacrifice is normalized the people being sacrificed are part of the society that sees it as normal. They aren't going to the volcano kicking and screaming, like we think they should be doing. They are going the way they would expect their neighbor to go if it were their neighbor who was going...stoically...proudly...whatever.

The design of democracy, at it's foundation, does in fact rely on not challenging any democratically made decision. You fight like hell for what you think is best, then the vote is taken and the decision is made...and everyone gives their all to making that work. No matter whether they voted for or against. That's what has broken down in the US. Mitch McConnell voiced it openly, but the GOP has operated for several decades on the principle that any idea attached to the democrats has to be made to fail in as spectacular a fashion as possible, at any cost. They abandoned the basic agreement of participation in democracy, so democracy has failed...it just isn't stinkin' enough yet for a lot of people to notice that it is dead.

As to the key question: how do I approach a situation where the majority disagrees with what I think on an important matter?

That depends. The most critical factor is whether or not the "matter" in question is something I have agreed to resolve democratically. In practice, there is very little such matter. If I have not agreed to a democratic resolution, then I am free to do and think whatever I want and the majority can suck it, unless they have some means to enforce their demands and the will to do so. If they have such means and will then I may employ subterfuge, or may just remove myself from identification with the group (note that the future of my clan has been clearly shifted to Central America and out of the US, for example).

What is most important to note is that I am in no way encumbered by a need to change their thinking. If the majority have determined that human sacrifice is what makes the world go round all that I need to do is my level best to stay out of their way. Since I never made any agreement about arriving democratically at the best way to make the world go round I won't be willingly participating in the human sacrifice effort, but beyond that their issue is theirs. I don't have to "save them from themselves," and will happily let them sacrifice each other all day long, and deep into the night.

 

[H4run]

What is most important to note is that I am in no way encumbered by a need to change their thinking.

Thats a part of democracy. You can may ask a specific labour or whatever organization for their chosen candidate regarding the current presidential election that they believes able to accommodates their organization's vision and mission, you can isnt it?

The voice of majority on that particular organization not necessarily the pure representation of the sum of independent thought voice of majority. It is a representation of the organization's decision, that derived from an individual or small number of decision maker within that organization that directs the outcome of the majority's voice.

But it will be easier to contemplate the source's of majority's voice from the smaller organization in our society. Like within family for instance, group of friend, or our work place. The role of parents, corporate leader, public figure, someone that people looked up to, these are the influencer. The dynamic of that not necessarily a form of manipulation, if you try to influenced the voice of majority you just decided to put yourselves as a factor that shape it, and making yourselves as a part of the dynamic is not a betrayal to democracy.

 

[bernie14]

You drew a good example, but it proves a different point. Good/right/ethical/proper...all of these are mass subjectives ie, they are determined by agreement, not any sort of objective reasoning. In the case of a majority thinking human sacrifice is good, their ethics would support their position...which may very well be appropriate for their circumstances, no matter how appalling it might appear based on our circumstances. What most people don't catch is that in societies where human sacrifice is normalized the people being sacrificed are part of the society that sees it as normal. They aren't going to the volcano kicking and screaming, like we think they should be doing. They are going the way they would expect their neighbor to go if it were their neighbor who was going...stoically...proudly...whatever.

The design of democracy, at it's foundation, does in fact rely on not challenging any democratically made decision. You fight like hell for what you think is best, then the vote is taken and the decision is made...and everyone gives their all to making that work. No matter whether they voted for or against. That's what has broken down in the US. Mitch McConnell voiced it openly, but the GOP has operated for several decades on the principle that any idea attached to the democrats has to be made to fail in as spectacular a fashion as possible, at any cost. They abandoned the basic agreement of participation in democracy, so democracy has failed...it just isn't stinkin' enough yet for a lot of people to notice that it is dead.

As to the key question: how do I approach a situation where the majority disagrees with what I think on an important matter?

That depends. The most critical factor is whether or not the "matter" in question is something I have agreed to resolve democratically. In practice, there is very little such matter. If I have not agreed to a democratic resolution, then I am free to do and think whatever I want and the majority can suck it, unless they have some means to enforce their demands and the will to do so. If they have such means and will then I may employ subterfuge, or may just remove myself from identification with the group (note that the future of my clan has been clearly shifted to Central America and out of the US, for example).

What is most important to note is that I am in no way encumbered by a need to change their thinking. If the majority have determined that human sacrifice is what makes the world go round all that I need to do is my level best to stay out of their way. Since I never made any agreement about arriving democratically at the best way to make the world go round I won't be willingly participating in the human sacrifice effort, but beyond that their issue is theirs. I don't have to "save them from themselves," and will happily let them sacrifice each other all day long, and deep into the night.

Tim, that sounds extraordinarily of Randian objectivism ...

 

[bernie14]

Thats a part of democracy. You can may ask a specific labour or whatever organization for their chosen candidate regarding the current presidential election that they believes able to accommodates their organization's vision and mission, you can isnt it?

The voice of majority on that particular organization not necessarily the pure representation of the sum of independent thought voice of majority. It is a representation of the organization's decision, that derived from an individual or small number of decision maker within that organization that directs the outcome of the majority's voice.

But it will be easier to contemplate the source's of majority's voice from the smaller organization in our society. Like within family for instance, group of friend, or our work place. The role of parents, corporate leader, public figure, someone that people looked up to, these are the influencer. The dynamic of that not necessarily a form of manipulation, if you try to influenced the voice of majority you just decided to put yourselves as a factor that shape it, and making yourselves as a part of the dynamic is not a betrayal to democracy.

Whats the difference between the "influencer" and the "manipulator"?

 

[aelf]

I questioned my intention sometime do I care more about the right things to happened or winning an argument with stubborn people(s) for the sake of my ego? If I want the right thing to be implemented I need to learn to be patience for the timing and learn to step back when necessary swallowing the bitter pill; but if I care more about winning the argument I should step forward just to prove my point that people are wrong and may win nothing in the end.

The catch is that sometimes it's pretty much impossible to change people's minds (e.g. most moral conservatives when it comes to gay rights), and there is no chance what you want will be implemented unless you change enough of their minds. Under such circumstances, winning arguments is the only victory you can hope for (aside from the eventual death of the majority, if it's a generational thing). I guess that's why I'm finding it tiring and not worth it.

You drew a good example, but it proves a different point. Good/right/ethical/proper...all of these are mass subjectives ie, they are determined by agreement, not any sort of objective reasoning. In the case of a majority thinking human sacrifice is good, their ethics would support their position...which may very well be appropriate for their circumstances, no matter how appalling it might appear based on our circumstances. What most people don't catch is that in societies where human sacrifice is normalized the people being sacrificed are part of the society that sees it as normal. They aren't going to the volcano kicking and screaming, like we think they should be doing. They are going the way they would expect their neighbor to go if it were their neighbor who was going...stoically...proudly...whatever.

No, I think in some cases it's possible for something to be objectively good or bad regardless of what people think (as long as you believe that there's such things as 'good' and 'bad'). It's a consequence of logic. In the human sacrifice example, belief that it is good is only plausible if people also believe that it accomplishes something that is ultimately better than the loss of lives - for the Aztecs, it delays doomsday; for the Vikings, it appeases the gods so that they will grant their tribe and its many human members survival and prosperity. If through knowledge or science you have become aware that this is not true, then there's no longer any reason to believe that human sacrifice is good. The only other requirement is that one sees the loss of human lives as a bad thing on its own (i.e. if it does not realise a bigger benefit), and there's plenty of good reasons to think so without having to rely on subjective values of ethical frameworks.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

That which is liked by most people is what we call lowest common denominator. It's McDonalds food.

"Good" can mean an infinitude of things, but most commonly it will mean one of these two:

"Good" as in a normative judgement. Whether something is good or bad is based in a person's ethical codex, their socialization, their assumptions about life and human interaction, and universal justice. "Adolf Hitler was a bad man".

"Good" is in a qualitative judgement. Whether something is good or bad is based in a purely subjective, ultimately arbitrary aesthetics judgement, whose parameters are unique to every person, with significant overlap. "Eraserhead is a good movie".

No, I think in some cases it's possible for something to be objectively good or bad regardless of what people think

Nonsense. Nothing in the universe, not a single thing, has inherent properties (beyond the physical, one could argue, but then it gets complicated). Nothing has value or meaning, unless applied. This is especially true for language, semiotics and symbols. You simply ignore the massive amount of assumptions that are needed to even come as far as declaring something good or bad (these assumptions, of course, are subjective in and of themselves, for example "human life has value".) None of your examples works if you throw the assumption "human life has value" out of the window.

Your human sacrifice example fails on many levels, actually, because human sacrifice can have some very tangible, measurable effects beyond delaying "doomsday", effects that science could prove, like for example: Conquering dissent in your population, instilling a fear of gods to keep your servants humble, establishing yourself as a ruler, establishing your monopoly on both worldly and divine power, holding a spectacle, entertaining viewers.. It is a wildly multifaceted event and all these "effects" are mentioned can be seen as positive or negative depending on POV.

Same with formal logic, too. It is always based on axioms, which are always arbitrary (mostly based on empiricism, actually, which in turn is also subjective). The fact that it is a closed system doesn't make it objective. Yes, one could argue, that even without the axioms of formal logic, it would still be a system based on subjectivity, because formal logic makes the baseless assumption that all things in the world follow the universal law of causality (cause and effect).

tl;dr: Neither a normative, nor a qualitive/aesthetic judgement can ever be objective. They are grounded in fundamental axioms and assumptions about the universe which themselves are not objective.

 

[Kyriakos]

And conversely, what most people think is bad is bad.

I've recently seen this sentiment expressed here on this forum, but it's a pretty common one, and we all probably lean on it at some point. It's much easier to push your point when you can claim that you have majority backing - it cuts down on the necessary and often fruitless effort to explain the correctness/righteousness of your position. Indeed, social change is often driven by majority support.

It seems clear to me, though, that what the majority thinks is good is not necessarily good. Even if we were to espouse some kind of utilitarian relativism (where 'good' is largely in the eye of the beholder, and therefore we should go with what most people think is good in order to maximise happiness), there can be other considerations. For example, if a majority think that large-scale human sacrifice is good, it would still be pretty impossible to defend that view from an ethical standpoint - in such cases, people are stretching the definition of 'good' beyond what typically agrees with human experience. Or if somehow this belief undermines the relativist foundation that it rests on (e.g. if you believe that individuals are not allowed to think differently from the majority regarding what is good, therefore denying relativism).

However, by-and-large, it's really difficult to argue against this line of thinking. As I mentioned, it's very convenient. Plenty of intelligent people believe it, and it takes way too much effort to resist the majority. It can also be an uphill moral battle, fraught with the danger of being accused of elitism and intellectual arrogance. On the other hand, acceding to this means not going against the majority, and by way of corollary, it means not challenging any democratically-made decision.

Personally, due to my experience living where I am, I'm increasingly finding it too tiring to fight against the majority, and it's pretty much impossible to win anyway. So my attitude is becoming more of "Well, knock yourselves out. And if you suffer for it later, that's too bad."

Thoughts? How do you approach a situation where the majority disagrees with what you think on an important matter?

I think that to a degree humans do share a common code ("code" rather) of ethics. As you noted, it can appear to be not the case when you are examining a specific society, eg the human-sacrifices of the aztecs or others.
Yet "good" and "bad" become more clear and more evident as having a basis the more you move to an extreme. For example while it is easy to find difference of opinion regarding specifics of political tactics (should there be more money given to group x, more to y etc) it won't be as easy to find a majority or a vast group who support "just (literally) kill all x" etc (unless you are german; then logic isn't in play ).

Socrates once argued that it is in the nature of humans to want to be good, and that those who aren't just do not identify what would actually be good for them. I think that this is true to some degree (albeit you can always have reactionaries; in fact Dostoevsky's famous Notes from the Underground begins with the reactionary protagonist attacking that position of Socrates and mocking it).
Psychopathology cannot be (by definition as well) something tied to a majority, so reactionism or other such issues do not have to come into play here.

 

[H4run]

Whats the difference between the "influencer" and the "manipulator"?

Nice one even though it is just semantic, but yes I understand as a Filter Manipulator this particular definition is needed to be discuss

Well if we see it in literal sense there should be no difference between "manipulator", "influencer", "agitator", "propagandist", we may argue that the target object might be difference like you would not propagates a temperature but you can manipulate etc. We may even doing some semantic or semiotic acrobat here like to withhold our opinion in order not to affect the voice of majority itself is a form of manipulation. So yes you are right here it is literally the same

However I used the word "to manipulate" here more in a cultural sense, making an influence over the voice of majority through a method that betrays democratic system itself; imagine the word trickery, lies, scam, now bring all the signified attributes over the previous words that I mention and inject it to the word manipulator, I really hope you understand what I meant.

The catch is that sometimes it's pretty much impossible to change people's minds (e.g. most moral conservatives when it comes to gay rights), and there is no chance what you want will be implemented unless you change enough of their minds. Under such circumstances, winning arguments is the only victory you can hope for (aside from the eventual death of the majority, if it's a generational thing). I guess that's why I'm finding it tiring and not worth it.

I will not try to convinced the Islamophobs to see Islam in a good perspective, I just want them to acknowledge the freedom of religion and tolerate Muslim, hence they are Islamophobs no more.

The same thing with Homophobic, there is no need to convinced them to accept gay people, instead convinced them to acknowledge their right, their own set of right and wrong (moral standard). It is not about to bring them to accept your moral set, it is more to help them to see that in reality people have different moral set and that doesn't mean people cannot live in coexistence.

edit: Just see who they first ask for political opinion, who they are look up to on this kind of subject, well that's the one people you need to discuss with, just mind the other.

 

[bernie14]

Psychopathology cannot be (by definition as well) something tied to a majority, so reactionism or other such issues do not have to come into play here.

Not so sure about that....on a fundamental level, psychopathy is the lack of consideration towards others which is pretty much universal, even if hidden in a joking manner....

I think that most people should just do what i need to be done. It is why i created a paypal account.
Sadly they seem to only care about what they want.

In most cases it is well defended on an unconscious level but it is always there. Every single individual, aside from the old argument of survival, thinks and acts based solely on their perception. Empathize and sympathize all you want, you are not walking in anyone else's shoes

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I think that to a degree humans do share a common code ("code" rather) of ethics. As you noted, it can appear to be not the case when you are examining a specific society, eg the human-sacrifices of the aztecs or others.
Yet "good" and "bad" become more clear and more evident as having a basis the more you move to an extreme. For example while it is easy to find difference of opinion regarding specifics of political tactics (should there be more money given to group x, more to y etc) it won't be as easy to find a majority or a vast group who support "just (literally) kill all x" etc (unless you are german; then logic isn't in play ).

Socrates once argued that it is in the nature of humans to want to be good, and that those who aren't just do not identify what would actually be good for them. I think that this is true to some degree (albeit you can always have reactionaries; in fact Dostoevsky's famous Notes from the Underground begins with the reactionary protagonist attacking that position of Socrates and mocking it).
Psychopathology cannot be (by definition as well) something tied to a majority, so reactionism or other such issues do not have to come into play here.

I think human beings pretend to share a common code for practical, material, egoistic and identity-related reasons. It's where concepts like "judeo-christian ethics" and "the west" come from. The uncomfortable truth is that no, these concepts are not universally shared, not even in "the west", and we are continuously reminded of that every time a mass shooting happens, or when a country who was fighting to be a democracy only decades ago voluntarily votes in a dictator, or when all ideas of respect and ethics are thrown out of the window as soon as anonimity is present or even implied (the internet, the stampede at the love parade.)

Your idea about the Holocaust being "illogical" also does not apply, in fact one could argue that Nazis were utilitarians. And indeed most of the nazi leadership genuinely thought they were doing the world a favor, they were, speaking from a utilitarian pov, weighing out the benefit of the entire world against the suffering of some jews, and decided that the former outweighs the latter. It is absolutely logical. Logic, if anything, was the problem with the Nazis, not a lack thereof. Dehumanizing a subject (what you call let's just kill all x) is a state that is achieved via sophisticated propaganda networks and a cultural shift. This fundamentally proves that there is no consensus about good and evil. When there are still today thousands of people either defending (it was justified) or denying (it didn't happen the way you think it did..) the most disgusting event in world history (arguably), then we can throw any idea of universal consensus out of the way.

Socrates I think is the most insightful part of your post, and he actually ends up agreeing with me. (Almost) everyone fundamentally wants to be what he himself considers good (not what others consider good!). And so did Hitler. He was convinced he was doing a good deed, even up until the moments a bullet went through his brain.