3 ms·
You are obviously correct that we don't just kill things because they are subhuman, but it sure makes the threshold for deciding to kill things lower. We genera
by ksdale 8y ago
You are obviously correct that we don't just kill things because they are subhuman, but it sure makes the threshold for deciding to kill things lower. We generally kill animals very differently than the way we kill humans, particularly pests. Animals are often killed when they pose the slightest risk to humans.
Killing women and children could only ever seem appropriate if one thought that the women and children deserved as much consideration as a wild animal. I think it's the same with slaves in a lot of time periods. They didn't kill them for fun, but they also didn't get charged with murder when they did kill them.
Between killing enemy combatants and killing pests, genocide tends to look a lot more like killing pests.
- Udik 8y agoI think we agree, more or less. Now, to add a corollary to this discussion, consider that existential threats are usually perceived, if not necessarily as sub-human, as non-human. Because somebody who doesn't just disagree with you on some issues but wants to destroy you must be necessarily lacking some fundamental human quality. So once you've set a narrative of the "it's us or them" type, it's easy to place the blame of your necessary defensive action on the enemy: because the enemy has already renounced its humanity when it set itself on enslaving or destroying you.