Seversky wrote:
The psychopath may decide that he is morally justified in satisfying his appetite for rape and murder but all his potential victims are equally justified in deciding that they don’t want to be actual victims. Given that the potential victims greatly outnumber the psychopaths the will of the majority is likely to prevail. What’s wrong with that? The Nazis may have believed that they were morally justified in believing that the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and mentally disabled were corrupting society and should be exterminated. If they had been asked, those groups would almost certainly have disagreed, as would at least part of the German people. As did much of the rest of the world. The Nazi regime was overthrown at great cost. Was that wrong?
I responded:
“The Nazi regime was overthrown at great cost. Was that wrong?”
Under your theory of morality, the most powerful prevailed. And the mere fact of their prevailing makes their actions right.
The more interesting question Sev is what about the opposite. Suppose the Nazis had won WWII and eradicated the Jews and homosexuals and then taken over the school systems of the world and taught everyone to believe that the eradication of every Jew and homosexual on the face of the earth was a good thing. Suppose further that you came along and bucked the system, so that you were literally the only person on the face of the earth who says killing all the Jews and homosexuals was wrong.
Would you be right and everyone else wrong?
I predict you will dodge that question. And why will you dodge it? Because if you give the only obviously correct response, the entire materialist edifice you have constructed for yourself will come tumbling down. And you will never allow that. Better to avert your eyes from the glaringly obvious truth than abandon the comforts of your materialist worldview.
So far my prediction has been confirmed.