Where the actions of Dr. Josef Mengele morally neutral?

Where the actions of Dr. Josef Mengele and others morally neutral (read first!)?


  • Total voters
    58
I'll leave it to wiser men to decide whether morals are subjective or not, but Mengele's action don't fit into any moral system i have heard of.
 
@non comformist: actually if you would have just said not every human being is black and white in terms of evil and good, If you looked hard enough no doubt you could find a person with absolutely no redeeming features, but they are rare and they don't function well in society,and that most people can become evil given the right circumstances you would of saved a deal of posts there:)

Morals are both subjective and objective that is self evident, but beyond the scope of this thread, try setting up a thread on what you consider morality to be is my advice.
 
sanabas said:
Huh? I'm not saying any homo sapiens is sub-human. I'm saying that some people are quite capable of saying that not all homo sapiens are equally important, and using that to justify doing things tothe less important animals. And that a very similar argument is used to justify doing all sorts of things to less important members of the animal kingdom.
I totally agree with you, and didn't mean to insinuate you think some persons are less than others (sorry you took it wrong, English is not my main language :))



sanabas said:
It doesn't work because murder laws aren't particularly subjective, and because you don't get to pick which murder law you're going to be judged by. But it's very possible to be convicted of murder for a killing that was entirely morally justified according to your morals. That's because the morals you're using are subjective, and just because it's morally ok to you doesn't mean it's morally ok to someone else.
I think it should go like this : "hello sir, i'd like to kill you because xyz". If the person shares your ethical values, he will kill himself immediatly. I'm serious (not beeing ironical or anything). You still have to ask him because you have to respect him and respect his difference of point-of-view and morale... Or else your just a terrorist ;) (Osama is convinced he ethically has to kill the Americans!!!). Now I can imagine the 9/11 scene in an utopia world : "Hello, this is Mr Ben Laden speaking on television. In order to make humanity progress, I bought you 2 boeings and put 2 crew members in each, please make sure, for the benefice of everyone, to make them crash on those 2 tall buildings you have in NY..." (I know it's bad humor !!! no offense meant!!!)
 
Sidhe said:
Morals are both subjective and objective that is self evident, but beyond the scope of this thread, try setting up a thread on what you consider morality to be is my advice.
I don't mean to be rude, but I ask you to find me one individual without a redeeming feature (ugh, I feel so dirty,....that sounds like Cierdan-speak).
 
Even if morals are subjective, they should be consistent within oneself. Mengel performed tests without consent on others, and these are tests that he would not have performed on himself.

Therefore, NO.
 
cairo140 said:
Even if morals are subjective, they should be consistent within oneself. Mengel performed tests without consent on others, and these are tests that he would not have performed on himself.

Therefore, NO.

My dinner tonight consisted partly of cow that was killed without consent. Most of the time, I wouldn't do that to myself, so does that make my morals inconsistent?
 
It is wrong. The research may have saved lives, but it is very wrong, and we could have waited for a less cruel experimental approach.

P.S.: Tell PETA and other animal rights activists about these experiments. Maybe it will stop them from complaining about using animals in experiments instead of humans. If they persist, suggest to them that they be used as test subjects.
 
King Alexander said:
I don't see what morals have to do when pure murder is involved: he DID murdered and tortured(the later is still used by civilized countries...) all those subjects-people and was a pure killer.

From the moment he hurted people, he violated the laws, and were against people's instict to protect other people from death-danger.

he didnt violate any law, becus he was goverment funded.
maby he violated us law, or britans law or every other place in the worlds law. but that dosent matter becus hes not thear, hes whear its legal.
 
Bill3000 said:
Science is and should be above all morals. The knowledge of the universe is the ultimate goal of humanity regardless of what sacrifices we need to take, including sacrificing our own humanity for said knowledge.
I sincerely hope you are never, ever, allowed to hold any position of power or authority over any group of people in your life as long as you hold that viewpoint.

cody_the_genius said:
For those who voted "yes," how would you feel if one of these experiments were done on your friends/family members?
As much as I may agree with you regarding Bill3000's views of so-called "knowledge" over morality or others who voted yes, I have to say that I am no fan at all of that particular argument. Family being involved will always change things. It's not hypocritical or a cop out, it's just the way things are.

For example, suppose you and your family lived in Texas and your dad was the biggest death penalty supporter that State had ever seen. The prosecution would never let him sit on a jury if you were accused of murder because he is your father and they know that when family is concerned, peoples' strongest held beliefs get thrown out the window for the sake of family.
 
Bill3000 said:
Science is and should be above all morals. The knowledge of the universe is the ultimate goal of humanity regardless of what sacrifices we need to take, including sacrificing our own humanity for said knowledge.

What he said.
 
In that case,
VRWCAgent said:
I sincerely hope you are never, ever, allowed to hold any position of power or authority over any group of people in your life as long as you hold that viewpoint.
what he said.
 
hmm, shame- i do wish to rule over a community some day.
 
nonconformist said:
I don't mean to be rude, but I ask you to find me one individual without a redeeming feature (ugh, I feel so dirty,....that sounds like Cierdan-speak).

Why would you consider an honest question rude?

Pedro Lopez maybe? A serial child killer and rapist who killed 110 children and boasts about it to this day saying that he will be the most remembered man of the century, he's actually proud of it. Even knowing about what made him a sick child rapist and murderer is no excuse, he could of become wealthy with his talent for stealing cars instead after being imprisoned for it and being raped in jail he turned into a psychopath and went on a killing spree of such overwhelming depravity that it taints your soul just to read about it, a man who has bought nothing to no one, spent his whole life killing and raping children and should rot in hell for a very long time. I'd say he might qualify? Probably subjective though?

I'd say Vlad the Impaler had nothing in the way of redeeming qualities either, I'm sure there are many more I could dredge up if I had time. Unless you count warmongering a redeeming feature or fighting wars one in which case, I supose so.
 
Sidhe said:
Why would you consider an honest question rude?

Pedro Lopez maybe? A serial child killer and rapist who killed 110 children and boasts about it to this day saying that he will be the most remembered man of the century, he's actually proud of it. Even knowing about what made him a sick child rapist and murderer is no excuse, he could of become wealthy with his talent for stealing cars instead after being imprisoned for it and being raped in jail he turned into a psychopath and went on a killing spree of such overwhelming depravity that it taints your soul just to read about it, a man who has bought nothing to no one, spent his whole life killing and raping children and should rot in hell for a very long time. I'd say he might qualify? Probably subjective though?

I'd say Vlad the Impaler had nothing in the way of redeeming qualities either, I'm sure there are many more I could dredge up if I had time. Unless you count warmongering a redeeming feature or fighting wars one in which case, I supose so.
I'm sure you could find redeemingfeatures in all of them.

Animal lovers, vegetarians, teetotallers?
 
:lol: no none of the above anyway. I don't think Pedro counts though, he's not even human and neither was Vlad for that matter.

Vlad the impaler had a penchant for drinking blood instead of wine, human and animal(which discounts him from the animal lover bit) I don't think that counts as teetotal either and certainly not vegetarian. :)
 
Can you say strawman? I knew you could.

You have set up a question that has nothing to do with the set of answers offered.

So, I find Dr. Mengele's actions morally reprehensible; and this is a subjective view - obviously.

I would say the vast majority of extant humans share that feeling.
But clearly not all, typically we call those who do not share this feeling 'crazy', 'sick', 'psychopathic', or similar.

If no action is morally wrong, then no action is morally neutral either; i.e. there is no moral standard.
If morality is subjective there is indeed a standard, a subjective one.

Thus if I answer yes, it does not mean that 'nothing is truly wrong'; and if I answer no it does not mean that there exists an absolute morality (heh, but don't mention that to Ayatollah So).

I did not vote in this misleading a hopelessly simpleminded poll.
 
@Perfection:
But it says nothing about the relative correctness of the observer claiming the action is morally positive with regards to the observer claiming the action is morally positive, so while observers may have opinions, subjective morality itself can't pass judg[e]ment on Mengele's actions, but has to leave them morally neutral. I can't see that there is any such thing as subjective morality, just an opinion of "I dislike this action" combined with "My opinions are the only thing that matter to me".
 
Erik Mesoy said:
@Perfection:
But it says nothing about the relative correctness of the observer claiming the action is morally positive with regards to the observer claiming the action is morally positive, so while observers may have opinions, subjective morality itself can't pass judg[e]ment on Mengele's actions, but has to leave them morally neutral. I can't see that there is any such thing as subjective morality, just an opinion of "I dislike this action" combined with "My opinions are the only thing that matter to me".

There is no absolute "correctness" of a moral evaluation of an action - that's the whole underlying principle of relative morality.

Say we're both watching Miss Universe. Miss Venezuela comes out and in my opinion she's the ugliest girl I've ever seen in my life - yet to you, she's GORGEOUS. Simply because our opinions on this matter are relative and not based on any sort of an absolute scale doesn't mean that we can't pass judgement regarding the beauty of Miss Venezuela. I think she's ugly, you think she's hot - there is no absolute hot-ness scale that we could use to determine which one of us is "more right" than the other. Even if Miss Venezuela ends up winning the whole thing to become Miss Universe - my position is just as valid as it was before - I simply disagree with the judges.

Morality works the same way. The idea that all actions are morally neutral is as ridiculous as the idea that all people are equally beautiful - or that we're unable to pass judgement on a person's beauty simply because there is no absolute scale that we could use as a benchmark.
 
This may sound rather sick, but a lot did come from these and other things, medically speaking. Mainly human tolerances, which we probably could've found out without killing a single person.

Sure I think what he did was sick and twisted, but apparently they thought it was necessary for one reason or another.

I do also think it was sick.
 
Back
Top Bottom