Even if you are right and nothing is a worthy comparison. Let me ask you a somewhat practical and important moral question:
If I murdered 10 people by shooting them in the head because they are black
Or if I murdered 10 people by slowly torturing them until they die from shock, this time it had nothing to do with who they are, just that I want to do this to someone.
What is worse? A terrible motivation or a terrible outcome?
And now that I asked that, maybe you are thinking that it is kind of a moot point, both are horrible, for both I should be in jail for life if not executed, right?
So we all can agree that out of all of the horrific things possible, genocide is one of the worst. A genocide is already hitting max on the horrifying scale, practically speaking, Hitler should have been in jail for life ir executed, but just because what Netanyahu is doing is not as horrific as the Holocaust, does not mean he shouldn’t also be in jail for life or executed, right?
And what would be the benifit of keeping the Holocaust in a category of it’s own? Does comparing it to something else that basically hits the max on the horrifying scale really reduces from the horrifying reality of the Holocaust?
For the sake of making a better world, I think comparing genocides to genocides, no matter the scale, no matter the horrificness, is the right way to make sure that people understand that any genocide is already as horrifying as it gets
And one last point that I think really drives it home. On the individual level do you think it matters? Does a starving, scared, injured, homeless, orphaned child cares if he is part of the Holocaust or the Gaza genocide? If you take a survivor from each, would you be able to say who is more deeply scarred?
Even if you are right and nothing is a worthy comparison. Let me ask you a somewhat practical and important moral question:
If I murdered 10 people by shooting them in the head because they are black
Or if I murdered 10 people by slowly torturing them until they die from shock, this time it had nothing to do with who they are, just that I want to do this to someone.
What is worse? A terrible motivation or a terrible outcome?
And now that I asked that, maybe you are thinking that it is kind of a moot point, both are horrible, for both I should be in jail for life if not executed, right?
So we all can agree that out of all of the horrific things possible, genocide is one of the worst. A genocide is already hitting max on the horrifying scale, practically speaking, Hitler should have been in jail for life ir executed, but just because what Netanyahu is doing is not as horrific as the Holocaust, does not mean he shouldn’t also be in jail for life or executed, right?
And what would be the benifit of keeping the Holocaust in a category of it’s own? Does comparing it to something else that basically hits the max on the horrifying scale really reduces from the horrifying reality of the Holocaust?
For the sake of making a better world, I think comparing genocides to genocides, no matter the scale, no matter the horrificness, is the right way to make sure that people understand that any genocide is already as horrifying as it gets
And one last point that I think really drives it home. On the individual level do you think it matters? Does a starving, scared, injured, homeless, orphaned child cares if he is part of the Holocaust or the Gaza genocide? If you take a survivor from each, would you be able to say who is more deeply scarred?