How might someone view genocide from the perspective of ethical relativism?

Question

any answers? would be greatly appreciated

Answer 1

When he was in prison before his execution,Saddam Hussein was asked about the massacre of the Kurds.  He said that was "necessary."   I guess someone like that could see genocide as necessary to accomplish certain goals.

Answer 2

To get the terms defined:

"Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of ones culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards "

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/i...

Genocide "It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group"

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lan...

The n***s viewed certain people as sub-human and had no issues with killing millions.In the various tribal, religious and power wars (Cambodia, Sudan etc.) each side  tends to dehumanized it's opponent. There was also lot of that displayed following 911. Anyone remember the T-shirt about nuking Kabul?

Ethical relativism is one of those deconstructionist terms that avoid making a moral judgment. In this case that a culture or society has something wrong with it.

Answer 3

Without accepting any of these as correct or acceptable viewpoints here's some examples:

1. Experimental gassing of disenfranchised citizens to test national weapons systems to protect from larger threats.

2. To reduce the greater threat of overpopulation.

3. To remove the "savages" that threaten civilized society.  This one was used quite a bit in the genocide of North American natives.

4. If we don't kill them, they'll kill us or take over the country.

You can see the theme. It almost always is justified as a smaller evil than what would or could happen if it wasn't done.

Answer 4

Ethical relativism is an oxymoron, IMO.  

I understand your question and the answer would have to be situationally specific.  Ethical relativism is not a proscriptive ethical position, but rather a method for justifying actions on the basis of particular situations.  

To understand ethical relativism in this context, try wrapping your head around the various historical rationalizations people have used to justify genocidal practices.  the extremely slippery point of view of ethical relativism would require that you adopt those excuses as potential justificatiosn.  If you are like me, you will find that the only relativisms really worth thinking seriously about are those involved in general and special relativity.  

ADD:  Let's not confuse cultural relativism with ethical relativism!!!   We can discuss the impossibility and uselessness of cultural relativism some other time!

Answer 5

A person who goes to study another culture must set aside the mindset of the culture with which one has been raised. Not easy perhaps impossible. First, I think one would have to look at the reasoning behind the action. If the group thinking of genocide has been threaten then it is an extension of self defense, maybe overzealous or possibility, not. If there has been no previous physical threat, how has this idea formulized.  Is it from hundreds of years of disagreements or

something else. Anthropology studies what we call primitive people in order to get an idea of about early man, anything else is a psychological/sociological study.  IMO  

Answer 6

If your society thinks it's OK, then it's just fine.

Answer 7

Can you give any more details or expand on the term "ethical relativism" for me?