They tell themselves this as they continue to push the Nazi agenda.
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
It doesn’t matter whether an individual or a group or a nation “decides” a particular person (or type of person) is better off dead.
It’s still wrong to end that person’s life.
And I think using the term “Holocaust” is A-OK.
We've heard almost the exact same rationalization from another group lately - that being the ESC pushers.
The idea should go back even further than the Holocaust. Medical ethics has been on tenuous ground for hundreds of years now.
Inextricably linked with scientific ethics, both face the same basic problem: “What happens when the pursuit of knowledge causes harm?”
Objectivity and rationalization go hand in hand. That is, by harming one or some, others can be helped or saved. This leads invariably to dehumanization, as has long been known.
In 1818, the book, “Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus” was published. In essence, it was about medical and scientific ethics, and how with their failure, horror and destruction are visited on all.
But in that time, Dr. Frankenstein was ostracized by the medical community for engaging in “unholy” acts.
But even then, it was common for medical students to steal cadavers from graveyards, for their studies. The infamous Burke and Hare murders were just a decade later. So messing around with human remains was not Frankenstein’s ethical lapse. What was found so repulsive was not that he caused harm, but that he tried to restore life to dead tissue.
By trying to be the best imaginable healer, by restoring the dead to life, Frankenstein crossed the ethical boundary. How different would the story have been if he had discovered the way to revitalize just a single dead organ or limb of a living person? Even in those days, his accomplishment would have placed him among the greatest of all physicians, with Galen, with Hippocrates.
But instead of trying to restore life, he tried to create life.
At that time, the medical world and the public understood his ethical failure. Why it was wrong to do so. But today, there are no more boundaries. Scientists and physicians are no longer bound by any ethical code. The Hippocratic Oath just gets in the way of what they want to do.
That is, it doesn’t matter if it harms or kills. Doctors and scientists put themselves above that, feigning objectivity with rationalizations.
If it destroys the world, and all that dwell on it, it does not matter, as long as their perverse curiosity is sated. Today, Dr. Frankenstein is lauded precisely *because* he defies God. And even if the monster is indeed soulless, it does not matter because souls are just imaginary.
They would present him with the Nobel Peace Prize, for allowing tyrants and bloody dictators at least some semblance of immortality.