Is there an objective morality?

[Erdall]

Ok, I kinda understand where you are coming from. I'm familiar with the MGS series, but not well-acquainted with it.

I don't agree with your statement that a morality that is best for everyone should be pursued, because a morality that is great for one person might be terrible for the next. Otherwise, I see what you're saying.

More than pursuing morality itself, is more about looking in ourselves what's best for us and, when some kind of personal reasons are 'intertwined' between two persons for example, better to dialogue the matter, but also neither talking way too much about it or even being redundant at all.

That's why "talk is cheap" after all, x'D I always liked to cut to the chase when I see the moment is fittable for it, :P

Edited July 19, 2015 by Erdall

[Chiki]

I think it is neither right nor wrong until you look at it relative to a goal.

The fact that killing Jews is right relative to Nazi Germany is what makes moral relativism.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Chiki

[Erdall]

The fact that killing Jews is right relative to Nazi Germany is what makes moral relativism.

Bingo.

And is honestly wrong to kill in such ways. Too extreme and bloody.

Hitler may he wanted for his country to thrive cause was tremendously under a grievous echonimical chrisis, among other bad things. But to use the rage against jews always sounded like a pretty lame excuse coming from him in order to boost the people's subjective morale, to make 'em feel better and superior in front of everyone else, as they could surpass the bad shape Germany once had suffered greatly after the First World War. But after all of that, you know the terrible consequences so many paid for.

(One can also wonder, by the way, if the US could help Europe in general before all of that happened ... but that's all from the past anyway)

Mass genocide just like that is so inhuman, if not utterly wrong anyway.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Erdall

[Rapier]

Moral relativism is a joke view that absolutely no good thinker should subscribe to. You think it's ok for Germans from Nazi Germany to kill Jews?

Didn't you say before that it is impossible to say whether something is morally acceptable or not, through a moral error theorist perspective? How can you make any morally valid judgment of value, then?

@Irysa

Ok, my example was bad. Let's take a somewhat more eccentric one. Imagine a setting like the Hunger Games, where people are sent to a huge arena to fight each other for their lives. If killing is wrong, then is it wrong to protect your own life by killing others? Sometimes these absolute criteria are self-conflictant, because sometimes it is questionable or not wrong at all to kill people. In this setting, I think there is no right or wrong in killing to save your life, and thus I don't think it is possible to make a moral judgment whatsoever.

Another simpler but easily imaginable scenario is this: Suppose I decide to give a friend of mine a ride to their home, sparing him of having to ride a bus and spend his money. While this is beneficial to my friend, it is prejudicial to the other party. Some actions necessarily affect others negatively even though my intent is to help someone in need. Can we define right and wrong in such cases?

Bingo.

And is honestly more than wrong to kill in such ways. Too extreme and bloody.

Hitler may he wanted for his country to thrive cause was tremendously under a grievous echonimical chrisis, among other bad things. One can wonder if the US could help Europe in general before ... but anyway, that's all from the past.

Mass genocide just like that is so inhuman, if not utterly wrong anyway.

Do you see now why your argument that "we should respect other people's moral views" is wrong? You don't seem like someone who can respect Nazi Germany's moral views (I'm bold enough to say no sane human being would respect it). Some moral positions simply are not respectable. It has nothing to do with changing the world or forcing people to adhere to my views.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Rapier

[Erdall]

Do you see now why your argument that "we should respect other people's moral views" is wrong? You don't seem like someone who can respect Nazi Germany's moral views (I'm bold enough to say no sane human being would respect it). Some moral positions simply are not respectable. It has nothing to do with changing the world or forcing people to adhere to my views.

Quote me exactly where I wrote "Nazism is all wrong". The worst point about all what happened Wolrd War II is how they carried that in their souls by killing so much people, not the ideology itself.

I am not really fond about every single aspect of the nazism, excpet for what it is basically. And we all know about that, so we can't really hate a simple idea, except for those who carry it in quite an ... extreme way. Because, seriously, nobody could stand any sort of extremism.

Some points about nazism may lead to that dangerous path, but nothing is shiningly perfect. Some things could had been necessary to change on that, or the people's attitude towards it, etc.

But I don't know, really, as for I am pretty sure is that it was completely unfair to kill millions of jews in such ways, so unnecessary ... well, it's warfare's nature letting this kind of things happen, more than anything else's fault ...

And you may fault to a simple ideology, but the real big deal lays in the one who let all of this to happen before, and was named once before as Hitler. Not gonna hate someone's dead long ago, but such kind of people are heartless. And heartless people are pretty much sickening, without any sort of morals or not.

However, for what I could respect from anybody are their own points of view about anything related to life itself. Look at Hannibal Lecter, he has his own points of views more or less correct in general terms about laws, humanity's nature and even civilization itself (still a serial killer though). Also Mickey from Natural Born killers, while a pure sociopath or not, I could agree to some basic points from himself, such are "the media can create a man-made weather", because such influence for good or bad is, at times, way too much to affect our own sane morale.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Erdall

[Rapier]

Your entire post hints that you find Nazism wrong.

And is honestly more than wrong to kill in such ways. Too extreme and bloody.

(...)

Mass genocide just like that is so inhuman, if not utterly wrong anyway.

German supremacy over other races was a thing in Nazi ideology. It justified genocides. Yet you say mass genocides are bad, while saying the ideology which advocates for it "isn't necessarily bad". Your opinion seems to be inconsistent.

The worst point about all what happened Wolrd War II is how they carried that in their souls by killing so much people, not the ideology itself.

I can't understand you. So the problem is not the ideology, when it was the ideology they carried in their souls that influenced them to kill so many people?

Some points about nazism may lead to that dangerous path, but nothing is shiningly perfect. Some things could had been necessary to change on that, or the people's attitude towards it, etc.

Is there even something positive that you see within nazi ideology?

But I don't know, really, as for I am pretty sure is that it was completely unfair to kill millions of jews in such ways, so unnecessary ... well, it's warfare's nature letting this kind of things happen, more than anything else's fault ...

This doesn't make sense to me. How is nazism not to be blamed for the death of millions of jews? The ideology outright encouraged the subjugation of other races. They did exactly what was "in the book". And how is an appeal to nature sufficient to take the blame from people (as you say, it weren't the nazis' fault for doing nazi things with innocent people)?

Your post is overall inconsistent and logically wrong.

[Erdall]

Your entire post hints that you find Nazism wrong.

Indeed it basically is. Problem is that it came from the misfortune Germany had once suffered, and people were very frustated. Therefore, this Hitler guy got rid of it in the wrong way to 'improve' his country and let his obsession also trying to conquer the world because he saw fittable for doing so thanks to his all recreated and false ego. Period.

The real problem behind nazism was a pretty negative manifesto of many bad things happened to the germans. In order to avoid such things that can lead pretty much to unnecessary attroicites, is better to take care of each other kinda like US helped most of Europe countries rather than going berserk and without thiking the real consequences.

I am not the one blaming the simplest things in real life. I mean, I always prefered to check where the problems come from to analyze properly why anything happens in this way and not in another. We're 'humans', at least we relativize and we think, we create ideas, but mostly important we also have feelings, some basically positive, others more 'negative' or way too 'stronk' to handle, lol. Nazism was in reality born from a strong fusion of the people's frustation and and desperate desire to reach a solution for them, despite the chaos they let go after all what they did.

And while any nazi follower could yell at me that he feels superior and, therefore, can do anything whatever wants to, because he states that is simply correct by his ideology's terms and can believe in that, I won't say or do anything unless he pretends to do something ... nasty. You know, basic self defense.

I know the dangers of this ideology like any sane man. But it always depends the way you look at it rather than saying all nazism's followers are wrong, cause that can also lead to strongs prejudices in my opinion. Just let it be for now, unless you don't want to provoke them like it could happen anytime with North Korea. Multiple times threatening to take over us, but in reality, unless they're really crazy enough or desperate to do so ('desperate' cause I don't see the country is in such bad shape like Germany, which was in a desperate condition and, naturally, like the Nohr army could declare war to the Hoshido realms cause both were starving to death), is better to let the yapping going around 'em, lol. That's when I'm talking about 'respecting' other's 'morals', unless they really want to mess up with ya, there you go then.

One can think anything wants to, as long as that doesn't determinate to her / him to do anything unnecesary and bad for the rest of people. You know, like they say "one person's freedom ends where the other person's nose begins".

Sorry if I seem to keep my sensitivity way too much, but I'm kinda like that at times, hehe

Edited July 19, 2015 by Erdall

[Makaze]

The fact that killing Jews is right relative to Nazi Germany is what makes moral relativism.

I'm not seeing anything incorrect here.

It is not right relative to me if that's what you mean.

[Chiki]

I'm not seeing anything incorrect here.

It is not right relative to me if that's what you mean.

If you went and moved to Nazi Germany, according to moral relativism, it would be ok for you to kill Jews.

[Augestein]

I feel like you keep beating around the bush on this, so to speak. You keep addressing the fact of conflicting moral beliefs, and no one, myself included, is debating you on that. But how do you know there is no objective morality? Is there any proof that there is not a definitive list of right and wrong? No. Now, that may sound like an argument from ignorance, but I think our intuitions/conscience may be rooted in some objective morality. Of course, that statement in itself is a gateway into a whole different debate, so I will leave it alone. My point is that I've yet to see someone address morality instead of perceptions of such.

The conflicting views happen as a result of there not being an objective one. While this is not necessarily sufficient to definitively state "no objective view," it's certain far more decisive and less dismissive than trying to make an objective morality. If there was an objective view, people wouldn't have to simply agree on what they felt was right or wrong. There would be no room for argument-- whether you understood how the objectivity functioned or not. The proof lies in the fact that there exists room for people to disagree and not produce nonsensical arguments as a result of their disagreements. Simply not being able to comprehend WHY someone would feel a certain way does not somehow mean that their views are incorrect. This is the issue you're having.

Without any form of perception, you cannot even begin to form any articulate opinion on morality. Because it requires one to actively be able to be within a situation, and analyze decisions on their beliefs and past and what is believed will cause less problems in the future. The reason examples are being sited is because morality is judged on literally a case by case basis and formed and shaped as a result of the various circumstances. It's not something that a person can simply make note of: sure, there are some that most people have similar beliefs on, but correlation is not causation, so all that can be observed and absorbed from here is that humans will draw similar conclusions on certain subjects. That doesn't mean that these similarities are correct. Nor does it mean they are incorrect.

Like here, perhaps someone can try to help with this one: let's try assuming the position that there IS an objective morality. Now what? Where do you go from there? If there is, now what? Because if it's objective, no one should be able to argue against it without making illogical arguments and nonsensical conclusions. That's about all we can assume. And that's... Skirting into some dangerous waters there. It's an interesting thought though: the unshakable argument. Terrifying to say the least.

[Blaze The Great]

Indeed it basically is. Problem is that it came from the misfortune Germany had once suffered, and people were very frustated. Therefore, this Hitler guy got rid of it in the wrong way to 'improve' his country and let his obsession also trying to conquer the world because he saw fittable for doing so thanks to his all recreated and false ego. Period.

The real problem behind nazism was a pretty negative manifesto of many bad things happened to the germans. In order to avoid such things that can lead pretty much to unnecessary attroicites, is better to take care of each other kinda like US helped most of Europe countries rather than going berserk and without thiking the real consequences.

I am not the one blaming the simplest things in real life. I mean, I always prefered to check where the problems come from to analyze properly why anything happens in this way and not in another. We're 'humans', at least we relativize and we think, we create ideas, but mostly important we also have feelings, some basically positive, others more 'negative' or way too 'stronk' to handle, lol. Nazism was in reality born from a strong fusion of the people's frustation and and desperate desire to reach a solution for them, despite the chaos they let go after all what they did.

And while any nazi follower could yell at me that he feels superior and, therefore, can do anything whatever wants to, because he states that is simply correct by his ideology's terms and can believe in that, I won't say or do anything unless he pretends to do something ... nasty. You know, basic self defense.

I know the dangers of this ideology like any sane man. But it always depends the way you look at it rather than saying all nazism's followers are wrong, cause that can also lead to strongs prejudices in my opinion. Just let it be for now, unless you don't want to provoke them like it could happen anytime with North Korea. Multiple times threatening to take over us, but in reality, unless they're really crazy enough or desperate to do so ('desperate' cause I don't see the country is in such bad shape like Germany, which was in a desperate condition and, naturally, like the Nohr army could declare war to the Hoshido realms cause both were starving to death), is better to let the yapping going around 'em, lol. That's when I'm talking about 'respecting' other's 'morals', unless they really want to mess up with ya, there you go then.

One can think anything wants to, as long as that doesn't determinate to her / him to do anything unnecesary and bad for the rest of people. You know, like they say "one person's freedom ends where the other person's nose begins".

Sorry if I seem to keep my sensitivity way too much, but I'm kinda like that at times, hehe

I feel like you confused a couple things. Juging by your post, when you say ideology, it would make more sense to replace that with "means to an ends". Nazi ideology, no matter how someone tries to spin it, is restore Germany to glory, take over, kill Jews, etc. It is, from almost every view, wrong. However, Hitler's end (restoring Germany to glory) was not so bad in itself. The means he chose (trying to take over the world, blaming and killing Jews) were much more controversial and generally evil. He certainly could have taken a more moral path to restoring Germany.

Also, how exactly are we respecting the morals of NK when they threaten us? Are we doing them a favor by not wiping them off the face of the map? I don't see how we are respecting their 'morals'. Respect isn't not blowing them up. It's called being rational, lol. Though some would argue we should just get it over with, because it will happen one day anyway

@Augestein

Still waiting for you to address HOW you know that conflicting views stem from subjective morality. Just because we can't see something doesn't mean that it isn't there. Objective morality could very easily be naturally infused in our conscience, and it gets diluted by our biases, experiences and the like. Until there is VERY strong evidence for no objective morality, my points stand.

Also, as an aside, I'm assuming that it could still be considered objective morality if it was objective for every act, correct? Sort of like rule vs. act utilitarianism, but on a much broader scale. As long as it can't be changed for that specific case, it's still objective.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Blaze The Great

[Augestein]

If you went and moved to Nazi Germany, according to moral relativism, it would be ok for you to kill Jews.

No. That's not quite right. By moral relativism, if you were moved to Nazi Germany, there would be GROUPS of people that wouldn't find it wrong to kill the Jews. This is not the same thing. In general, it's not necessarily fine to do. It's just there wouldn't be a punishment from... Nazi Germans for killing a Jew or two.

[Chiki]

No. That's not quite right. By moral relativism, if you were moved to Nazi Germany, there would be GROUPS of people that wouldn't find it wrong to kill the Jews. This is not the same thing. In general, it's not necessarily fine to do. It's just there wouldn't be a punishment from... Nazi Germans for killing a Jew or two.

If you moved to Nazi Germany, and became a Nazi German, why can't you kill Jews?

[Erdall]

I feel like you confused a couple things. Juging by your post, when you say ideology, it would make more sense to replace that with "means to an ends". Nazi ideology, no matter how someone tries to spin it, is restore Germany to glory, take over, kill Jews, etc. It is, from almost every view, wrong. However, Hitler's end (restoring Germany to glory) was not so bad in itself. The means he chose (trying to take over the world, blaming and killing Jews) were much more controversial and generally evil. He certainly could have taken a more moral path to restoring Germany.

What I was trying to emphazise as well. Nazism ITSELF could be judged one way or another (and yada yada), but it was more like the way was carried on in the end. The means Hitler chose as you stated were perfectly wrong, and that sums it up.

Also, how exactly are we respecting the morals of NK when they threaten us? Are we doing them a favor by not wiping them off the face of the map? I don't see how we are respecting their 'morals'. Respect isn't not blowing them up. It's called being rational, lol. Though some would argue we should just get it over with, because it will happen one day anyway

What I just said. Again.

Respect, rationality ... quite the same on the context. But if NK tries to mess up against us, well ... what a mess for everyone, but specially for them if they try to dare way too much, heh. But one shall not be opened to negative expectations too much. Nobody knows what holds the future, so that's a good reason enough to keep things calmed and not way too shady in any case.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Erdall

[Blaze The Great]

I feel like you confused a couple things. Juging by your post, when you say ideology, it would make more sense to replace that with "means to an ends". Nazi ideology, no matter how someone tries to spin it, is restore Germany to glory, take over, kill Jews, etc. It is, from almost every view, wrong. However, Hitler's end (restoring Germany to glory) was not so bad in itself. The means he chose (trying to take over the world, blaming and killing Jews) were much more controversial and generally evil. He certainly could have taken a more moral path to restoring Germany.

What I was trying to emphazise as well. Nazism ITSELF could be judged one way or another (and yada yada), but it was more like the way was carried on in the end. The means Hitler chose as you stated were perfectly wrong, and that sums it up.

Also, how exactly are we respecting the morals of NK when they threaten us? Are we doing them a favor by not wiping them off the face of the map? I don't see how we are respecting their 'morals'. Respect isn't not blowing them up. It's called being rational, lol. Though some would argue we should just get it over with, because it will happen one day anyway

What I just said. Again.

Respect, rationality ... quite the same on the context. But if NK tries to mess up against us, well ... what a mess for everyone, but specially for them if they try to dare way too much, heh. But one shall not be opened to negative expectations too much. Nobody knows what holds the future, so that's a good reason enough to keep things calmed and not way too shady in any case.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Unless someone is totally ignorant of Nazism, they can't misjudge it. Racism, genocide, and conquest are a part of their beliefs. There is no way around it. If someone understands what Nazism is, they understand what their beliefs will probably lead to. No two ways about it.

Respect and rationality are not the same, no matter the context. If you don't understand that, I implore you to look at a dictionary. If we respect North Korea, we will honor their requests and act in a way befitting of two countrirs, regardless of how they view each other. However, the only "irrational" behavior would be to destroy them. I suppose you could argue that it is irrational to treat them poorly, but that's just how diplomacy works. And that is to say, a lot of the time it does not.

[Makaze]

If you went and moved to Nazi Germany, according to moral relativism, it would be ok for you to kill Jews.

If you use that scale. If you move outward to relative to the earth then it's wrong overall again. I use an individualist scale for my decisions.

In other words, Augestein is right.

[Chiki]

If you use that scale. If you move outward to relative to the earth then it's wrong overall again. I use an individualist scale for my decisions.

In other words, Augestein is right.

So you still don't see what's wrong with moral relativism.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's wrong, for example, to imprison Nazi Germans for killing Jews, because it's right for them. It's completely unjustified on the moral relativist view to impose your own moral beliefs on people of different beliefs since they're right according to moral relativism.

So are you ok with not punishing Nazis for the Holocaust?

[Erdall]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Unless someone is totally ignorant of Nazism, they can't misjudge it. Racism, genocide, and conquest are a part of their beliefs. There is no way around it. If someone understands what Nazism is, they understand what their beliefs will probably lead to. No two ways about it.

Part of it, not entirely. I don't like to deal with extremes one way or another anyway. Besides, there is a ridicolous minority believeing in the Führer, so no big deal at all.

The biggest front to confront right now is about dealing with NK. Nowdays, we have a misunderstanding problem with that.

Respect and rationality are not the same, no matter the context. If you don't understand that, I implore you to look at a dictionary. If we respect North Korea, we will honor their requests and act in a way befitting of two countrirs, regardless of how they view each other. However, the only "irrational" behavior would be to destroy them. I suppose you could argue that it is irrational to treat them poorly, but that's just how diplomacy works. And that is to say, a lot of the time it does not.

Yeah, well, I was talking like to be rational implores to be tolerant about anything you may dislike, but at least you try to see why somebody likes that. That's all what I was trying to express.

Now, let me jump to a personal conclussion: you seem to seek something against NK by this "I suppose you could argue that is irrational to treat them poorly, but that's just how diplomacy works". Still, I need you to explain with more details about that part, cause I'm kinda lost how exactly diplomacy works or that we shall punish them directly without thinking twice, etc ... I can't really tell, honestly.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Erdall

[Makaze]

So you still don't see what's wrong with moral relativism.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's wrong, for example, to imprison Nazi Germans for killing Jews, because it's right for them. It's completely unjustified on the moral relativist view to impose your own moral beliefs on people of different beliefs since they're right according to moral relativism.

So are you ok with not punishing Nazis for the Holocaust?

I have to trouble believing you're actually not reading this but here goes again.

1) I subscribe to meta-ethical relativism, not normative relativism.

2) I use an individualist scale for my own decisions.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Makaze

[Irysa]

Ok, my example was bad. Let's take a somewhat more eccentric one. Imagine a setting like the Hunger Games, where people are sent to a huge arena to fight each other for their lives. If killing is wrong, then is it wrong to protect your own life by killing others? Sometimes these absolute criteria are self-conflictant, because sometimes it is questionable or not wrong at all to kill people. In this setting, I think there is no right or wrong in killing to save your life, and thus I don't think it is possible to make a moral judgment whatsoever.

The only "right" thing to do here is for nobody to kill each other. I have never paid any attention to Hunger Games but know it's a Battle Royale ripoff, so I'll assume the organisers have some way to instantly kill people who disobey the rules. Thus the entire situation is wrong in the first place, because you're forcing innocents to kill or else you kill them. I would say that the imperative of "do not kill innocents" still applies here, you still have the option to resist, even if it means death. If I was transported at this moment right now back to Nazi Germany and ordered to operate a bulldozer to bury a hundred Jews alive, or else be shot and have my commanding officer do it, I would still rather die than do such a thing. There are things worse than death. That being said, I don't know if I would have the willpower to resist a similar situation where I would instead be tortured if I did not comply. I'd still say it would be wrong for me to do it though, because I would undoubtedly feel regret and shame for my actions. There would be no way for me to feel like I had done the right thing, even if I only acted in self preservation.

However, there may be a concession for your Hunger Games situation if others are not resisting, and are attempting to kill you. In this case, there is a potential argument for someone forfeiting their status as an innocent if they are actively trying to murder you and others, in which case you should defend yourself. I am personally not clear on the ethics of the death penalty, although I would lean to it being bad due to the burden of proof required and practical problems.

Another simpler but easily imaginable scenario is this: Suppose I decide to give a friend of mine a ride to their home, sparing him of having to ride a bus and spend his money. While this is beneficial to my friend, it is prejudicial to the other party. Some actions necessarily affect others negatively even though my intent is to help someone in need. Can we define right and wrong in such cases?

Objective morality does not neccessarily need to encompasse all basic interactions such as this. This is more of a deontological problem, but I think that most would say that you have moral duties foremost to those close to you, and that rather than it neccesarily being the "right" thing to do, you are going beyond moral imperatives. In fact I'm just going to quote this since I think it explains it better than I can.

A deontologist can do more that is morally praiseworthy than morality demands. A consequentialist cannot, assuming none of the consequentialists' defensive maneuvers earlier referenced work. For such a pure or simple consequentialist, if one's act is not morally demanded, it is morally wrong and forbidden. Whereas for the deontologist, there are acts that are neither morally wrong nor demanded, some—but only some—of which are morally praiseworthy.

I have to trouble believing you're actually not reading this but here goes again.

1) I subscribe to meta-ethical relativism, not normative relativism.

2) I use an individualist scale for my own decisions.

Meta-ethical relativism is essentially "might makes right", which I simply can't agree with. Even if we don't have to "tolerate" the behaviour of others (compared to normative relativism), power ends up being the determining factor in which groups have to tolerate what policies, because the strongest will exert their views over the weak.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Irysa

[Blaze The Great]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Unless someone is totally ignorant of Nazism, they can't misjudge it. Racism, genocide, and conquest are a part of their beliefs. There is no way around it. If someone understands what Nazism is, they understand what their beliefs will probably lead to. No two ways about it.

Part of it, not entirely. I don't like to deal with extremes one way or another anyway. Besides, there is a ridicolous minority believeing in the Führer, so no big deal at all.

The biggest front to confront right now is about dealing with NK. Nowdays, we have a misunderstanding problem problem with that.

Respect and rationality are not the same, no matter the context. If you don't understand that, I implore you to look at a dictionary. If we respect North Korea, we will honor their requests and act in a way befitting of two countrirs, regardless of how they view each other. However, the only "irrational" behavior would be to destroy them. I suppose you could argue that it is irrational to treat them poorly, but that's just how diplomacy works. And that is to say, a lot of the time it does not.

Yeah, well, I was talking like to be rational implores to be tolerant about anything you may dislike, but at least you try to see why somebody likes that. That's all what I was trying to express.

Now, let me jump to a personal conclussion: you seem to seek something against NK by this "I suppose you could argue that is irrational to treat them poorly, but that's just how diplomacy works". Still, I need you to explain with more details about that part, cause I'm kinda lost how exactly diplomacy works or that we shall punish them directly without thinking twice, etc ... I can't really tell, honestly.

Just because not all of Nazism is totally extreme beliefs does not mean that none of it is. Typically normal ideas (restoring your country to greatness) do not cancel out your thoughts of genocide lingering just beyond. In addition to that, it does not matter the quantity of people who share the beliefs, but the quality of beliefs that are held. And Nazi beliefs are very bad, overall.

As for my part about North Korea, I never implied anything, or at the least, I didn't mean to. The US, while on generally bad terms with NK, is still acting rationally towards them. In diplomacy relationships are often strained and typical diplomatic protocol isn't always followed. Take the US and Iran in the 70s, when Iranians stormed the US Embassy in Tehran. If things go south, then "rational" diplomatic protocol could be thrown to the wind. As for the broader issue, it would be irrational to destroy North Korea, even if some people want to. Why, you ask? They pose no threat to us, they have not provoked us or our allies, the positive consequences would be minimal and the negative ones possibly catastrophic, and they themselves are not without powerful allies (China, India, possibly Russia), so we should not harm them as of now.

I have no personal problem with NK, but my language is often blunt. I've seen people saying we should destroy them now, and honestly that's a load of garbage. So yeah.

[Skynstein]

I think Kant's views on morality are pretty much what we should follow nowadays.

[Makaze]

Meta-ethical relativism is essentially "might makes right", which I simply can't agree with. Even if we don't have to "tolerate" the behaviour of others (compared to normative relativism), power ends up being the determining factor in which groups have to tolerate what policies, because the strongest will exert their views over the weak.

Are you denying that that is what happens or that it should be what happens? Meta-ethical moral relativism is an is position, not an ought one.

[Irysa]

If it's not an "ought" position, then what do you think "ought" to be the cause?

[Makaze]

If it's not an "ought" position, then what do you think "ought" to be the cause?

Whatever benefits me personally.