Abstract
This chapter investigates how genocide makes use of the notion that the in-group can preserve itself only if it eliminates those it deems to be a threat to its purity. This devotion to ethnic or ideological purity can also be found in terrorist organization. This notion that others threaten the purity of the in-group points to an insecurity within the in-group. The in-group fears the others will defile their purity. The practice of genocide demonstrates a moral insensitivity within the perpetrators that leads to their moral degradation. Bystanders who remain indifferent to the plight of victims may be as morally insensitive to the violence as the perpetrators. Indifferent bystanders fail to demonstrate moral outrage in the face of injustice. Opponents who have felt moral outrage toward genocide do have legal and military options for redressing the moral atrocity. In the exercise of military options like the right to defend (R2D) opponents must exercise caution so that they themselves do not perpetuate a culture of violence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Jason Campbell, On the Nature of Genocidal Intent, 55.
- 2.
Campbell, On the Nature of Genocidal Intent, 102. When we discuss genocidal intent, it is a generalization of the intent of perpetrators. It should be understood that some individual wreaking havoc during a genocide may have had intentions of their own such as debauchery or greed.
- 3.
Jordan Liz, “‘The Fixity of Whiteness’: Genetic Admixture and the Legacy of the One-Drop Rule” Critical Philosophy of Race 6 (2, 2018): 239–61.
- 4.
Larry May, Genocide (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 4.
- 5.
May, Genocide, 4.
- 6.
Lawrence Thomas, “Innocence, Genocide, and Suicide Bombings” in Genocide and Human Rights (London, United Kingdom: Palgrave, 2005), 187.
- 7.
Lawrence Thomas, “Innocence, Genocide, and Suicide Bombings,” 187.
- 8.
Adam Jones, Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction (New York: Routledge, 2006), 232.
- 9.
James Waller, Becoming Evil (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 43.
- 10.
Waller, Becoming Evil, 49.
- 11.
John K. Roth, Genocide and Human Rights (New York: Palgrave, 2005), 269.
- 12.
Campbell, On the Nature of Genocidal Intent, 60, 154.
- 13.
Card, Confronting Evils, 272.
- 14.
Card, Confronting Evils, 180.
- 15.
Encyclopedia of Genocide, 250.
- 16.
For a description of this technology see Edwin Black, IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation (New York, New York, Crown Publishers, 2001).
- 17.
John Hawks, “How African Are You?” Science, March 15, 2006.
- 18.
Campbell, On the Nature of Genocidal Intent, 121.
- 19.
Dave Grossman, On Killing (New York: Little, Brown, and Company, 2009), 151.
- 20.
Only two possible political responses are cited here, namely, the right to defend (R2D) and the rapid response force (RRF). The author plans to include a more robust discussion of political responses in a separate manuscript.
- 21.
Robert L. Rothberg, Mass Atrocity Crimes (Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2010),109.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wilson, P.E. (2023). The Holocaust and the Ideal of Purity. In: The Degradation of Ethics Through the Holocaust. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30919-9_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30919-9_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-30918-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-30919-9
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)