American Indians Colonize the Old world in 1250 BC

[Gradine]

Well if their crime is to live here and have children and that upset the Native American way of life, then you are part of that crime and so am I. As I value my own existence, I am going to say the issue is morally grey, otherwise I would be arguing to get rid of myself, because under your reasoning, I shouldn't exist.

Would you sacrifice your life (hell, your very existence) if you knew with 100% certainty it would lead to a better world for all humanity?

Is every historical atrocity at worst "morally grey", or do you only feel that way about the ones that lead to your own existence?

Edit: And for what feels like the thousandth time, the "crime" you continue to describe does not even remotely describe, with any real accuracy, the historical facts surrounding the settling of North America by Europeans and the ensuing genocide of its native populations.You are continuing to completely ignore this very basic fact and peddling this complete fiction because, what, the truth is to horrible for you to accept? That your existence owes its life to centuries of death, destruction, and misery?

Welcome to the human condition. Get over it.

The "crime" in question, in case you were wondering, is centuries of willful physical genocide, followed by decades of willful cultural genocide. Do you truly believe that, because it ended up leading to your life here in the Americas, that excuses it?

 

[Shasarak]

Would you sacrifice your life (hell, your very existence) if you knew with 100% certainty it would lead to a better world for all humanity?

Would you sacrifice an entire people if you knew with 100% certainty it would lead to a better world for all humanity?

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

So a "what if genocide works out in the long run" type scenario?

 

[Gradine]

Would you sacrifice an entire people if you knew with 100% certainty it would lead to a better world for all humanity?

The difference in the questions here is that I would be making the choice for someone else, which even if it were only one person would muddy the morality considerably. I would not choose to murder (and what you are talking about is murder, not sacrifice) Mr. Bowman, for instance if I knew with 100% certainty it would lead to a better world for all humanity, because I believe pretty firmly in autonomy, and I would want for him to make that decision for himself.

Moreso than even murder, though, you stipulate "an entire people", which crosses the line into genocide. What you are asking is, would I commit genocide if I "knew" with 100% certainty it would lead to a better world for all humanity? The obvious answer here, of course, is no. I would hope that everyone would immediately answer no to that question. Even from a logical perspective, it would be impossible to believe that action A would lead to outcome B in this instance; we have centuries if not millennia of evidence to suggest that there is possible way for genocide to lead to positive outcomes. In fact, I would argue that an Earth minus any more of its considerably diverse cultures and peoples would be an objectively worse world.

A more interesting moral dilemma would sub in a million humans, chosen at random. but then you still know my answer to that question.

 

[Gradine]

So a "what if genocide works out in the long run" type scenario?

A fiction on par with "but I didn't know anybody was using this land" in its complete absence from the historical record.

 

[Riley37]

So what do you say the settler's motivation was then, to make human sacrifices to the Devil? Did they just like to fill Indians full of holes. So what exactly turned them into evil monsters that wanted to kill kill kill?

This is not an answer to the question which I asked.

This is an evasion. Also a straw man, but mainly an evasion, with a hint of temper tantrum. Until you can answer that question, as asked, I've leave further points and counter-points to others.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

A fiction on par with "but I didn't know anybody was using this land" in its complete absence from the historical record.

I'm thinking of the background of a setting for GURPS.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Well if their crime is to live here and have children and that upset the Native American way of life, then you are part of that crime and so am I.

(this is the part where I might piss off [MENTION=57112]Gradine[/MENTION])

Nobody is responsible for the acts of their ancestors. Our Constitution prohibits both hereditary titles and corruption of blood*; it is contrary to our founding ideals to either fetishize or demonize those whose genetic material we happen to carry. Among my ancestors there might be Jefferson Davis or Elizabeth Báthory or Genghis Khan... but screw 'em, I'm not them, I'm me and I'll choose my own path. That's the American way.

Furthermore, there is a principle in moral philosophy (one that is accepted by consensus a lot more strongly than most things in the field) that "ought" implies "can". That is to say, questions of what is morally right and wrong only have bearing on things that are possible. Because it is impossible to change the past or to erase you from existence, we cannot say that you morally shouldn't exist. You do exist. That is a fixed and unchangeable fact. All moralizing has to start from there.

*Yeah, I know, but the general principle is clearly present in the subtext.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Moreso than even murder, though, you stipulate "an entire people", which crosses the line into genocide. What you are asking is, would I commit genocide if I "knew" with 100% certainty it would lead to a better world for all humanity? The obvious answer here, of course, is no. I would hope that everyone would immediately answer no to that question. Even from a logical perspective, it would be impossible to believe that action A would lead to outcome B in this instance; we have centuries if not millennia of evidence to suggest that there is possible way for genocide to lead to positive outcomes. In fact, I would argue that an Earth minus any more of its considerably diverse cultures and peoples would be an objectively worse world.

That's not logical, that's empirical and kind of debatable. There's an easier response. Logically, the hypothetical is impossible because "all humanity" includes the people being killed and it clearly would not lead to a better world for them, ergo it cannot lead to a better world for all humanity.

(You can tell I'm being logical because I used the word "ergo". QED. )

 

[Shasarak]

The difference in the questions here is that I would be making the choice for someone else, which even if it were only one person would muddy the morality considerably. I would not choose to murder (and what you are talking about is murder, not sacrifice) Mr. Bowman, for instance if I knew with 100% certainty it would lead to a better world for all humanity, because I believe pretty firmly in autonomy, and I would want for him to make that decision for himself.

Moreso than even murder, though, you stipulate "an entire people", which crosses the line into genocide. What you are asking is, would I commit genocide if I "knew" with 100% certainty it would lead to a better world for all humanity? The obvious answer here, of course, is no. I would hope that everyone would immediately answer no to that question. Even from a logical perspective, it would be impossible to believe that action A would lead to outcome B in this instance; we have centuries if not millennia of evidence to suggest that there is possible way for genocide to lead to positive outcomes. In fact, I would argue that an Earth minus any more of its considerably diverse cultures and peoples would be an objectively worse world.

A more interesting moral dilemma would sub in a million humans, chosen at random. but then you still know my answer to that question.

So if you know how to get world peace but you dont want to do it, can you complain if someone else does it?

Otherwise we are just muddling through the same as we have always done.