Objective Observer

Morality is something bred into us from birth throuout nurturing. The natural feeling to conform in order to be at peace with society makes us accept what our families believe up until we enter the world. There we either adapt our morals and ethics to components of society that we interact with or we breakdown and become atheisists. Emotion is behind morals, that's how we can feel bad about something and know that it is against our morals. Therefore morals are whatever we teach ourselves. Is it right for me to tell others that they have the inccorect morals? No. Just that they don't have the same morals i do. When I'm talking about the majority rules, i'm speaking not in an elecotral sense, but in a literal sense. If the majority of people disagree with what is going on with a government they can overthrow it. Even if a coup or other form of rebellion fails, by the time the majority of the populace believe in an idea then that idea will survive any persecution. This is of course if the idea is a new one challenging an old one. Out with the old and in with the new always seems to be the way history has worked.

The biggest problems concerning people who are racist are that the poeple don't believe they're racist. Since racism is all relative and a matter of opinon, everyone feels that they are correct about their views on the world and how things are. For example: I come from a fairly conservative family, but i'm dating a highly liberal girl. When she came over one day my mom was nervous and trying to make a good impression. She made a slightly racist joke, and now my girlfriend thinks my mom is a crazy nazi or something. She also thinks i'll catch this racist bug, and it drives me up the wall how she can be so snesitive and i can't see what she sees.

Ah. Then what you are saying is that WWII didn't need to be fought, because the conquest of Europe by Nazis and the murder of European minorities was not immoral or wrong. After all, it was up to the Nazis to grant them any rights they might have had, and they didn't do that, ergo, they had no rights which could have been violated. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A government is set up by the people (majority), and the moment the majority is no longer being served but the minority, then it is the right of the majority to destroy the government they had created in hopes of building a new government. This is obviously not always the case, but it has always been the mob mentality of the masses that allow for governments such as the nazis to come into power. the fact that executions were taking place would be considered an internal affair, much like today's circumstances sorrounding mass persecution and execution. We fought the nazis in World War II because they were hell bent on expansion and wanted to rule from Spain to Kamchatka.

No, you have misread what I said. The moral weight lies totally within the 'rights' that either side will grant the conquered. You claim it exists elsewhere. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The confrontation between the Axis and Allies was beyond morals and ethics, but was also more than just a struggle between two power blocs. A series of treaties brought in Britain, Russia was backstabbed, and the United States had economic interests to protect in the Allied forces in Europe. All three of these nations were brought into the war to protect their own images, to protect their economies, or protect their people. These were main, if not the main, factors for the allied government officials making the decisions they did in Europe. Morals and ethics were used by the governments to fuel the spirits of the poeple helping the war effort. Now both the governments and the people have their own views in mind, neither neccasarily incorrect or mispercieved, but the common goals of destroying the 'axis of evil' united both in the effort.