Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Here you need to look at specific facts. But in general, the question you have proposed is such a continuation of an ancient dispute, which is more important, a person or a society. This question has no answer and probably cannot be answered without involving specific value systems. Because outside of Christianity, the value of human life is generally zero, it is impossible to justify it.
A good argument here can only be the approach of the law. If the murders were carried out without observing the laws of the country, then these murders are particularly cynical. Here, the Nazis gave us vivid examples with Nights or NATO members who bombed the civilian population of Yugoslavia and Libya.
You can try to argue on the topic “what exactly was the benefit of society from these deaths.” It is especially good if you yourself first understand the question “who was killed and for what exactly”, not according to propaganda, but according to real data (or according to historians, if it concerns past cases). When people can't explain Ataman Semyonov's atrocities in the Russian Far East and describe burning people alive as a method of fighting the Bolsheviks, they are either hardened sadists or very uncomfortable.
At the same time, having understood the topic, sometimes you will agree with the presence of expediency or see other ways out. This is also a good argument: “to achieve the same goal, there was also such a way out, why didn't they use it?”.
Why are they wrong? Maybe they're right from their point of view. For example, all lovers of Stalin simply hate everyone around them, all those who are not enthusiastic about Stalin, and even all those who have never heard of him. And indeed, they dream of exterminating them. Then these mass murders during Stalin's time are really a blessing for them, the Stalinists. Or there are white racists who really hate blacks and really want to destroy them all.
This way of thinking is not their own, but imported from outside. Even if you treat them, they get infected again, like syphilis or gonorrhea. It is necessary to isolate them from the source of infection, which is problematic. You can't just throw away their TV! And in this case, they will buy again.
But if discussion with such people is really important to you, read various authors from Ekho Moskvy, where they throw in topical arguments.
PS. This is not an advertisement, I just can't point out any other concentrated source.
I will try to answer your question. If you don't use religious arguments, you can use philosophical, historical, or literary arguments. As an argument, we can draw on the quote of Omar Khayyam : “the evil that you radiate will return to you without fail,” or as our Lermonov said: Evil breeds evil.” And we can also add that no normal government should consider mass murder expedient. Veved every person killed – maybe a few new lives, every doctor killed – a few saved patients, etc. No, of course there are bad doctors, teachers, etc., but it gives you the right to cut out more people!
You can't give me any examples of justifying murder. Political expediency does not justify crimes. As a conclusion, I have reason to suspect. 1.That the phenomenon was composed. 1. That you call mass murder something completely different. 3. That the justification of crimes was found in the words of criminals animals. Then why do you call them excuses belonging to people? I don't ask, it's obvious. You don't like people, you lie to them.