On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 1:58:19 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I need have no concept of moral absolutes to argue for a moral system
that would define holocausts as bad.

You may have noticed that I was talking slightly with tongue in
cheek, to show that there was another side to the argument. Of
course argument by intimidation isn't valid.

However, while perhaps one could come up with some complicated
philosophical or evolutionary rationale for saying that the
Holocaust was, oh, suboptimal or something...

to most people, the notion of moral absolutes, existing
irrevocably and independently of human wishes or fashions, is
easily understandable. And while no empirical guide to exactly
what those rights are may exist, a whole bunch of them seem to be
sufficiently obvious to obtain consensus.

Of course, the danger is: the concept of moral absolutes can be
misused to get people thinking they're justified in making war on
other societies to impose the customs of their own culture or the
beliefs of their own religion.

John Savard