Jeremy Stangroom

There are two big leaps in that statement. One is from “Nazis” to “people who voted for Hitler in 1932”. The other is from “X lives don’t matter” to “exterminate all X”. In both cases, I doubt many people would find the concepts equivalent.

First is a leap, of course, but it's a thought experiment, not an empirical treatise. Second point is about *permissibility* - not as much of a leap, but needs a bit of ground clearing to make it work properly.

I need to go to bed now, but re: diff in 2nd pt: 1944-45, all German and Japanese lives, for all practical purposes, “didn’t matter” in pursuit of victory in war, but we clearly didn’t have any intention of exterminating them and would’ve found that idea repulsive.

Sorry but that makes no sense. Obviously their lives had moral value, and in that sense they did matter (if it's true we would've found the idea of exterminating them repulsive). "For all practical purposes" isn't some magic formula. Sleep well, though!

People in the US and UK were generally OK with bombing raids that killed a huge number of civilians. I don’t know how to interpret that in a way that doesn’t involve a low value of German & Japanese lives in the moral calculus.

So contra your previous tweet they didn't find the idea of exterminating large numbers "repulsive"? I'm confused now!

Killing in the course of military hostilities, even if excessive, is not what most people would call “extermination”. For that, it would have to include deliberate killing of those who surrendered, are captured, or are fleeing from the war zone.

Right, thereby showing that Nazi lives do matter. They have moral worth. I don't know what you're trying to argue, or how it's a point against my thought experiment.