ethics

I'd like to talk about ethics, i think.

I'd like to talk some about positive versus negative ethics ... but also about the scope of one's ethics.

My main problem with the former of the former is the latter. The 20th century Germans were not, per say, unethical. The problem lay with the scope of their ethical system, that is, their ethical system did not include Jews and Gypsies and other non-Germanic peoples ... and those outside the scope of the established ethics (obviously) suffered greatly.

The question on my mind tonight is ... can one formulate a (reasonable) system of positive ethics that cannot be hijacked (via the same arguments) by those chanting God, nation, and language? That is ... one person might say that some individual X is not free because they lack a certain amount of capital. Someone else, however, might say that person Y is not free because they are being kept down by The Man. OK, good so far. But what happens when person Z, in popular opinion, is being kept down by The Jews, or is being undercut by The Immigrants. Is there a principled way to allow a Volk the right to decree the former is always true, but the latter is always false?