Where the actions of Dr. Josef Mengele morally neutral?

[Erik Mesoy]

@warpus: The existence of beauty contests with judges instead of opinion polls sort of implies that there's a standard being judged to, for the same reason we have trials in law.

The analogy to beauty doesn't really hold up. From an early age, politeness and the constraints of society dictate that we treat all people as being equally beautiful, to shut up if we disagree, and stigmatise others who do. (I opine "screw it, there's no right to not be offended and I want people to be honest with me", but I have Asperger Syndrome.) So by analogy, we should only pay attention to those who say that our actions are morally right, and ignore those who say otherwise.

The first poll option includes the words "I don't like what he did", which covers your base of opinion. Then it says that since morals are subjective, Mengele's actions weren't truly wrong - i.e. your disagreement is a personal matter that we can't judge from, and the Nuremberg trials were only held because a large number of people agreed that a) they didn't like the Nazis and b) their ideology should be imposed on the Nazis.
Regarding that, what makes you any better than the Nazis? It has to be either objective morality, or your opinion, and saying that you're better because you're of the opinion that you're better is either arrogant or ludicrous.

 

[Xanikk999]

I dont think the experements were morally neutral at all for one reason:

The people were forced to take part in the experements and that makes it wrong. Not to mention these people werent guilty of anything.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

that makes it wrong

wrong by an objective standard?

 

[Xanikk999]

wrong by an objective standard?

Well even then a lot of these experements had no scientific value, these ones just seemed like pure torture..

 

[Meleager]

Can you say strawman? I knew you could.

Offcourse I can. English is my first language.

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

It's a yes or no question.

If no action is morally wrong, then no action is morally neutral either; i.e. there is no moral standard.

If no action is truly wrong then every action is morally neutral. That's the point. If there's no standard, it is whatever you want it to be. It can be "tainted" by our backgrounds, beliefs or whatever.

If morality is subjective there is indeed a standard, a subjective one.

A standard must be common (i.e. not subjective). That's what makes it a standard. By definition . . . You can’t have a non-standard standard.

Thus if I answer yes, it does not mean that 'nothing is truly wrong';

I'll give you that. It merely means that Mengele's actions are not truly wrong. I'm working on the assumption that there isn't much worse.

and if I answer no it does not mean that there exists an absolute morality (heh, but don't mention that to Ayatollah So).

But if something is truly wrong it must be measured against a standard. Subjective morality is not a standard; hence what option are we left with?