The statement was:
“… something is correct if the majority says it’s correct and if society chooses to enforce that rule.”
When I asked him that would he stand by the same rule, if applied to WWII Nazi Germany and the resulting Holocaust?
I was met with silence.
Am I the only one or you also think that there is something completely wrong with this statement?
In fact to be honest, it’s not only, not right, it’s not even wrong, it’s retarded.
It is retarded because it takes no measure on the intellectual level to ascertain whether the majority is correct or not. Just because you legalize something, does not make it anymore moral than you wearing red tights and a cape and believing yourself to be superman.
If you hold to subjective morality then you have to be consistent and concede that the Holocaust was not only justified, it was a moral and a good thing. Lets be clear here, you are not arguing only that morality is not objective, but passively, that subjective morality is the version which is correct. “Correct” implies that the right and the good course of action, is indeed what the majority decides.
I am sure many atheists, agnostics, anyone who views morality as subjective, are nice people who would not want their words taken to such a case as Holocaust but then sadly, this statement logically ends there even when the people holding it don’t want it to be so.
When what is morally good, is decided by vote…then the Holocaust happens.