I strongly disagree. I think that it is hard to have the moral high ground when regretting the death of evil people. Of course, the best is for evil people to become good people, but failing that, the destruction of such people is a positive good, and should be regarded as such.
Forgiveness? Sure, but only with sincere repentance and change. A Nazi that comes to understand that what he did is evil, and regrets it, and spends his life trying to make things better as far as he can is one thing. A Nazi that says "I was just following orders" or "everyone else was doing it too" is something else completely.
Preachy? Eh, not terribly. Just incorrect (in my opinion).
So, your opinion is that, given that a bad person is unrepentant and won't change, their deaths are a moral good? Not just a regrettable necessity for preserving the welfare of others, but actually something to take satisfaction in and cheer for, independent of whether or not those deaths are necessary for some greater good? Because then, well, we might as well do it efficiently. Provided we can actually recognize them, that is. You know, gather them all up in one place for convenient disposal. Maybe a camp of some kind.
I feel like the Nazis made more mistakes than just choosing the wrong people to murder
. To be honest, I would be surprised if you didn't as well. But, from what I can tell, that conclusion falls out of your stated moral beliefs pretty clearly.
Godwin's Law aside (hey, you brought Nazis up first, I am free of sin), when it comes to practicality versus morality I think the problem might be one of definitions? You're parsing 'practicality' as basically meaning selfishness, whether for yourself or for your specific polity, I think, and 'romanticism' as selflessness.
Would you still say it's more moral to choose the 'romantic' choice if the practical choice is likely to save more innocent lives in the long run? Or would you classify the choice which benefits more people at either your expense or at the potential expense of your polity as the 'romantic' one? If it's the second, well, I agree that that's the correct option (you should optimize for the utility of
everyone, morally speaking, not just yourself and your country). But, if you're classing 'ruthless' options that are deontoligically bad but save more people as 'practical', and to be avoided in favor of 'romantic' choices that help fewer people, then I disagree. Because, well, when deontology and consequentialism conflict, you are choosing between being 'moral' and
actually making things better. And, well, I sort of feel like once it's stated that clearly, the choice of which to reflectively endorse should be obvious?
(For anybody feeling pedantic I know about ethical injunctions and universalizability and all that, and I employ them myself; I consider them a sort of meta-level consequentialism.)
(Also, if people, like, care about preventing cluttering up the thread, tell me so. I'll delete this and take it to PMs)
