It's not really that hard to make moral distinctions if you think about it logically. Our legal system differentiates between pre-meditated murder (first degree homicide), crime of passion (second degree murder), assault with no intention of murder that results in a death (first degree manslaughter), and mere negligence (second degree manslaughter). That's not too tough to understand, is it? Using a similar process we could limn out similar degrees of atrocity:ChristopherPerrien wrote:I love this sort of "double speak". So exactlty how to you determine "degree of guilt".
First Degree Atrocity: Volitional slaughter of wholly innocent groups. This would include:
— Genocide, the killing of a group by race (e.g. the Final Solution, the Armenian genocide)
— Slaughter for Profit, the kill of masses of people for economic benefit (e.g. the Belgian exploitation of the Congo, the Spanish occupation of Santo Domingo).
Second Degree Atrocity: Volitional slaughter of self-selected groups. This would include:
— Democide, the killing of religious, political, or social groups.
First Degree Mass-Manslaughter: Killing non-combatants as a by-product of wartime conditions. This would include:
— Strategic Bombing
— "Counter Insurgency" measures
Second Degree Mass-Manslaughter: Unintentional deaths as a by-product of bad policy. This would include:
— Political Miscalculation (e.g. the Ukrainian Famine, the Great Leap Forward)
— Barbaric Conditions (e.g. the Trail of Tears, the Gulags)
Of course, there are advantages to lumping things together. If we do not distinguish among degrees of guilt, then Eichman and Eisenhower can stand before us equally "guilty."