Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What do you think? Was he really evil, or just misquided or misunderstood?

My opinion is this:

While many of his actions were undeniably evil (The final solution, etc) as a man I believe he was not. I think he believed that what he was doing was for the best, therefore he was simply misguided. In my personal opinion the difference between someone DOING EVIL and someone BEING EVIL is INTENT. Hitler's intent was to do what he believed was right, therefore his actions were evil but he was not.


Waiting for the flamings from those of Jewish/Romany/Balshavik/non-aryan backgrounds, homosexuals and those given a one-sided education.......

Originally posted by Lord Coal
While many of his actions were undeniably evil (The final solution, etc)

All very deniable. I'd say it isn't evil.

Originally posted by Lord Coal
What do you think? Was he really evil, or just misquided or misunderstood?

My opinion is this:

While many of his actions were undeniably evil (The final solution, etc) as a man I believe he was not. I think he believed that what he was doing was for the best, therefore he was simply misguided. In my personal opinion the difference between someone DOING EVIL and someone BEING EVIL is INTENT. Hitler's intent was to do what he believed was right, therefore his actions were evil but he was not.


Waiting for the flamings from those of Jewish/Romany/Balshavik/non-aryan backgrounds, homosexuals and those given a one-sided education.......

Hitler takes too much credit for the holocaust. It was actually more of Himmler and Heydrich's doings. Hitler is just a man to point fingers at. The entire idea of The Holocaust as a whole, is evil, IMO. I mean, what's the purpose? Shoving people in a train for days and letting them off at their elongated demise? This is not justice. It's torture, and torture is a work of evil.

e·vil
–adjective 1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.

Ditto.

Hitler used the Jews as a escape goat and ordered there extermination and Himmler carried out those orders.

I say the world that Hitler lived in was evil. Hitler tryed to make a better world they only way he knew how. By killing the joo's.

dirk, I think what you're saying has it's merits. The world always has been evil and it probably always will.

I certainly agree that Hitler was trying to make the world a better place, doing what he BELIEVED to be the right thing, unfortunately he got it wrong and it wasn't just the Jews, Gypsies, Balshaviks and homosexuals that made this world the evil, corrupt and generally fcuked up place it is, but mankind as a whole.

Still, I believe he had his heart in the right place, so to speak. He didn't do what he did purely for personal gain as Bush and Blair do.

Even though he thought he was in the right, the overall picture, it was still evil.

So if a criminal does something wrong, its alright because he thought he was doing something good?

So Hitler giving orders to kill all his detractors, free speach and democracy to gain his power, isnt consider personally?

Hitler was a Genius.

He may have ha Bad Intentions, but he was still a Genius.

So, I would Call him Yes, But a Evil Genius..

I think, in my opinion at least, the difference between 'unsavoury' and 'evil' is intent, yes.

I personally don't believe Hitler's intent was evil, rather he was thoroughly misguided and lost his way eventually. If he believed that wiping out all the Jews he could find would make the world a better place, then what he was doing was what he believed was right, therefore his intent was to do the right thing. Obviously what he did wasn't actually the right thing to do, but the difference, I think, is the intent behind it.

Regardless of whether he believed what he was doing was right, calling for the extermination of the Jews (as well as Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals and gypsies), is undeniably evil. Killing people is bad. Genocide sucks.

However, I agree with Dusty that the Holocaust wasn't really Hitler's idea, he was just a charismatic speaker used by extremists.

The Holocaust was one of the reasons Hitler lost World War II, really. He devoted so many resources to building concentration camps that he didn't focus on military strength.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Regardless of whether he believed what he was doing was right, calling for the extermination of the Jews (as well as Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals and gypsies), is undeniably evil. Killing people is bad. Genocide sucks.

However, I agree with Dusty that the Holocaust wasn't really Hitler's idea, he was just a charismatic speaker used by extremists.

The Holocaust was one of the reasons Hitler lost World War II, really. He devoted so many resources to building concentration camps that he didn't focus on military strength.

Not undeniably.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Regardless of whether he believed what he was doing was right, calling for the extermination of the Jews (as well as Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals and gypsies), is undeniably evil. Killing people is bad. Genocide sucks.

However, I agree with Dusty that the Holocaust wasn't really Hitler's idea, he was just a charismatic speaker used by extremists.

The Holocaust was one of the reasons Hitler lost World War II, really. He devoted so many resources to building concentration camps that he didn't focus on military strength.

Of course not, if he believed what he did was right then he was obviously not evil. Evil is just an idea...

So Hitler wasn't evil and he wasn't good either.



I don't like those people either but this is just absurd... Like they do everything for personal gain and not because they think it's for the best. Like Hitler did everything he did for what he believed was best and not for personal gain...

Some perspective on things would be nice.

Of course he was doing what he thought was right!

No one bases their morality on doing what they think is wrong...

So I rape and kill and torture 100 hundred woman for pleasure, all I can say to make myself in the right is to say that I thought I was doing the right thing?

That's crazy. I'm would still be doing something morally wrong.

I still dont understand how Hitler didnt do anything for personal gain. Killing the Jews is his personal gain because he thought the Jewish race was the reason for all the crappy shit that happened to him. By spearheading the movement to eradicate them, he was doing it for his personal well being. Also, what about taking away the right to free speech? Isnt that for personal gain also? Or killing all the enemies he had for his parties political movement? Or taking away human rights?

Evil.

1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

Take note about harmful and morally wrong. Are we going to say genocide is not morally wrong? or harmful?

Like I said before, even though Hitler thought he was doing the right thing in his mind, overall, he was evil because he was morally wrong for being the spokesperson for the genocide of the Jewish people.

Originally posted by Smasandian
So I rape and kill and torture 100 hundred woman for pleasure, all I can say to make myself in the right is to say that I thought I was doing the right thing?

That's crazy. I'm would still be doing something morally wrong.

I still dont understand how Hitler didnt do anything for personal gain. Killing the Jews is his personal gain because he thought the Jewish race was the reason for all the crappy shit that happened to him. By spearheading the movement to eradicate them, he was doing it for his personal well being. Also, what about taking away the right to free speech? Isnt that for personal gain also? Or killing all the enemies he had for his parties political movement? Or taking away human rights?

Evil.

1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

Take note about harmful and morally wrong. Are we going to say genocide is not morally wrong? or harmful?

Like I said before, even though Hitler thought he was doing the right thing in his mind, overall, he was evil because he was morally wrong for being the spokesperson for the genocide of the Jewish people.

It is harmful for some. Though maybe useful for others. If we go by harmful most things are harmful. For example my post is harmful to your reputation as intelligent poster. Just kidding, or am I?

Morally wrong is subjective. So, yeah, I am here to say genocide is not morally wrong.

Alsonote the example of evil in the definition of "harmful" but that as an aside. If you want to claim that Hitler harmed many people through his doing I would agree. I wouldn't call it evil or morally wrong though.

Originally posted by Smasandian
So I rape and kill and torture 100 hundred woman for pleasure, all I can say to make myself in the right is to say that I thought I was doing the right thing?

That's crazy. I'm would still be doing something morally wrong.

That would depend on your morale views now wouldn't it? If you consider or other man nothing more then animals then you can justify it, so you aren't really wrong. Just breaking the law, which is illegal.



Well of course everything is done for personal gain, but really he did have the best interest of Germany at heart.



And yet if he would have won, if all the Jews were gone he would have been seen as a hero today, and still many people today share his views and believe that killing a certain group of the population, whether blacks whites jews Muslims whatever is for the good of the world.

So it is once again just a matter of personal believes.

I see a lot of stupid talk of people who don't know what they are saying. Nice little theories written down behind their computer about Being Evil.

Don't make me laugh.

If some of you were in the concentration camps during WW II, only to see your wife and children die, to eat rats, to dig your own grave, to be physically abused in every way and so on... you would know the face of evil. And you would hate it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not undeniably. so you think there's some wiggle room as to whether mass genocide is truly evil? I don't buy it

Originally posted by Strangelove
so you think there's some wiggle room as to whether mass genocide is truly evil? I don't buy it

There is. You don't have to buy it. Is just a fact.Originally posted by Kid Kurdy
I see a lot of stupid talk of people who don't know what they are saying. Nice little theories written down behind their computer about Being Evil.

Don't make me laugh.

If some of you were in the concentration camps during WW II, only to see your wife and children die, to eat rats, to dig your own grave, to be physically abused in every way and so on... you would know the face of evil. And you would hate it.

Yes, yes, nice bullshit there.

If hitler was evil then so was Roosevelt for the manhattan project (aka) the atomic bomb, and if you wanted to draw the line out even further so was albert Einstein for help with development of the atomic bomb. Japan attacks pearl Harbor and kills 2000+ people so the US Drops 2 atmoic bombs on them killing 200000+ people.

The everyone in the whole world is evil in there own little way, and if the Nazi's would have won the war Hitler proably would be regarded as one of the greatest rulers and generals. Winners of wars create what we call history and if hitler won history would be created by the nazi's.

Originally posted by Kid Kurdy
I see a lot of stupid talk of people who don't know what they are saying. Nice little theories written down behind their computer about Being Evil.

Don't make me laugh.

If some of you were in the concentration camps during WW II, only to see your wife and children die, to eat rats, to dig your own grave, to be physically abused in every way and so on... you would know the face of evil. And you would hate it.

Unless of course you consider the people killed there as less then human and a waste of space, in which case it was not evil but just a necessity and a cleaning up operation.

Wouldn't be the first time genocide was justified. A means to an end.

What is the point here?!
Of course no one sane would call himself/herself evil. But Hitler wanted to eradicate millions of people, telling about it as early as in Mein Kampf. If one believes in evil, he cannot deny that such act is evil.

Originally posted by dirkdirden
If hitler was evil then so was Roosevelt for the manhattan project (aka) the atomic bomb, and if you wanted to draw the line out even further so was albert Einstein for help with development of the atomic bomb. Japan attacks pearl Harbor and kills 2000+ people so the US Drops 2 atmoic bombs on them killing 200000+ people.

The everyone in the whole world is evil in there own little way, and if the Nazi's would have won the war Hitler proably would be regarded as one of the greatest rulers and generals. Winners of wars create what we call history and if hitler won history would be created by the nazi's.

Everyone has good and evil inside him, but do you really judge Hitler`s and Roosevelt`s actions the same way?

Originally posted by Lord Melkor
What is the point here?!
Of course no one sane would call himself/herself evil. But Hitler wanted to eradicate millions of people, telling about it as early as in Mein Kampf. If one believes in evil, he cannot deny that such act is evil.

Of course I and many others can.

Look if Hitler believed that the Jews were nothing and worthless and just taking up space and destroying the good German race, which he genuinely did and if he believed that the German race should be saved above all else, and that everybody should work there very best to make sure it prevails while all other races fall, if he really believed all that then it's really easy to make the killing of 6 million Jews and countless other people justified. After all, in the end it was all done for the greater good, a necessary sacrifice. Not evil because those Jews weren't any good to begin with.

Hell we had pope's justifying the inquisition and the crusades, Imams justifying Jihads and Fatwas, really murder even mass murder and genocide aren't that hard to justify as long as you believe you are doing it for some greater good. And there is no greater good that makes it easier to justify your actions then religion. Which is the same thing that brought the concept of good and evil into our lives.

Originally posted by Fishy
Of course I and many others can.

Look if Hitler believed that the Jews were nothing and worthless and just taking up space and destroying the good German race, which he genuinely did and if he believed that the German race should be saved above all else, and that everybody should work there very best to make sure it prevails while all other races fall, if he really believed all that then it's really easy to make the killing of 6 million Jews and countless other people justified. After all, in the end it was all done for the greater good, a necessary sacrifice. Not evil because those Jews weren't any good to begin with.

Hell we had pope's justifying the inquisition and the crusades, Imams justifying Jihads and Fatwas, really murder even mass murder and genocide aren't that hard to justify as long as you believe you are doing it for some greater good. And there is no greater good that makes it easier to justify your actions then religion. Which is the same thing that brought the concept of good and evil into our lives.


So I assume you don`t have your own concept of evil? Most human beings need something like the sense of right and wrong, even if it is often flawed.

He was behind the idea of burning babies alive. It was his idea for the mass slaughter of Jews and it was he alone who hired men to torture them. Animals were treated better than the Jews at the time.

Hitler did not find it a problem that Jewish woman were raped, or killed. He did not have a conscience. He did not feel empathy, shame, or remorse. He was a murderer, and a very evil man.

Originally posted by Lord Melkor
So I assume you don`t have your own concept of evil? Most human beings need something like the sense of right and wrong, even if it is often flawed.

My own? Yes of course I do... But the world is not black and white and my own concepts of good and evil are not universal values. So Hitler was evil in my eyes, he wasn't in his own. So no I can not answer this question with an absolute as it's still just a matter of personal opinion.

Originally posted by Ambience
He was behind the idea of burning babies alive. It was his idea for the mass slaughter of Jews and it was he alone who hired men to torture them. Animals were treated better than the Jews at the time.

Hitler did not find it a problem that Jewish woman were raped, or killed. He did not have a conscience. He did not feel empathy, shame, or remorse. He was a murderer, and a very evil man.

I agree up until teh last part. You can't say he was evil. At least not if you mean he was absolutely "no doubt about it" evil. If you want to say he was evil to you I am all for it.

Originally posted by Lord Coal
What do you think? Was he really evil, or just misquided or misunderstood?

My opinion is this:

While many of his actions were undeniably evil (The final solution, etc) as a man I believe he was not. I think he believed that what he was doing was for the best, therefore he was simply misguided. In my personal opinion the difference between someone DOING EVIL and someone BEING EVIL is INTENT. Hitler's intent was to do what he believed was right, therefore his actions were evil but he was not.


Waiting for the flamings from those of Jewish/Romany/Balshavik/non-aryan backgrounds, homosexuals and those given a one-sided education.......


are women evil?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree up until teh last part. You can't say he was evil. At least not if you mean he was absolutely "no doubt about it" evil. If you want to say he was evil to you I am all for it.

But he did not do a single good thing in his life.
His life revolved around the death of other people. It was his very idea which sparked the biggest terror the world has ever seen.

I watched one movie, one single movie where Nazi's took a shovel and threw a new born baby into a fire. How is that not evil?

How could any person think of doing such a thing? I find, in my heart, he was the worst person this world has ever seen. I only wish he died stript of is power, begging for his life. The bastard.

Sorry. Don't mind me.
Just my opinion.

But I'm not refusing to see the other side of the argument. I don't think it's wrong. But truly.

He craved power, and he got it. He rallied people together like nothing the world has ever seen. He made them stronger, built them up, and made them a stronger nation. They were the under dogs, and they soon became the most powerful, feared and most powerful people in the world.

Although he brought people together by hate. He did not start off his election by saying "I want to mass murder the Jewish people, and unleash such a horror the world has never seen! Vote for Hitler!" No, he earned people's trust. Then slowly as he crept up into the upper echelons of power. Then he found a common enemy.

He convinced people to work for nothing, and they did. Then he began gaining trust and power. Enough power to forsaken the Jewish people. The labor slowly mutated into slavery. Hitler got away with it. And his sheer brilliance threw the entire world off guard. He could have had everything. But lost it.

He was a devilishly brilliant man. But I found him evil. I think he was.

Originally posted by SpadeKing
are women evil?


the answer lies in the above question

Originally posted by Ambience
But he did not do a single good thing in his life.
His life revolved around the death of other people. It was his very idea which sparked the biggest terror the world has ever seen.

I watched one movie, one single movie where Nazi's took a shovel and threw a new born baby into a fire. How is that not evil?

How could any person think of doing such a thing? I find, in my heart, he was the worst person this world has ever seen. I only wish he died stript of is power, begging for his life. The bastard.

Sorry. Don't mind me.
Just my opinion.

But it is you who is saying he didn't know a good thing. How do we know that killing people is not a good thing? How do we know that starting a war is not a good thing? We just can't.

There just is no absolute good or evil we could judge by.


Though as you say you feel it in your heart. I can agree with that. He was evil to me too. And to most others. But we can't make up or pretend that there are absolute morals,just because we don't want to call someone evil. We know of no such moral code, we can't know of sucha moral code, it doesn't exist, it can not exist.

Originally posted by Ambience




How is that evil?

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
How is that evil?

It's cold blooded murder. Killing an innocent child, a baby.
They are defenceless, and they just threw them into the fire without mercy. They slaughtered them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But it is you who is saying he didn't know a good thing. How do we know that killing people is not a good thing? How do we know that starting a war is not a good thing? We just can't.

There just is no absolute good or evil we could judge by.


Though as you say you feel it in your heart. I can agree with that. He was evil to me too. And to most others. But we can't make up or pretend that there are absolute morals,just because we don't want to call someone evil. We know of no such moral code, we can't know of sucha moral code, it doesn't exist, it can not exist.

This is what I love about you, you are always so right. He did one good thing. Well, not really, it was a byproduct of a bad thing. But a good thing none the less. He stopped the depression.

No absolute evil? Come over to my house when my mom's PMSing. You can see the fires of hell in her eyes. =P

He could have been insane, but by the way he talked and he intelligence he used while speaking. That excuse is shot. Maybe he didn't mean for it to elevate to that level. Maybe by the time he realized the depth of what he was doing he wanted to stop it. But the German people would not tolerate it. But, I doubt it. I just didn't want to seem blond to the other side of the argument.

I noticed something when talking about this. When people are united by a common hate, their efforts are so much more enthusiastic then when fueled by good. Although when things revolve around hate, there is always a bitter end.

Originally posted by Ambience
This is what I love about you, you are always so right. He did one good thing. Well, not really, it was a byproduct of a bad thing. But a good thing none the less. He stopped the depression.

No absolute evil? Come over to my house when my mom's PMSing. You can see the fires of hell in her eyes. =P

He could have been insane, but by the way he talked and he intelligence he used while speaking. That excuse is shot. Maybe he didn't mean for it to elevate to that level. Maybe by the time he realized the depth of what he was doing he wanted to stop it. But the German people would not tolerate it. But, I doubt it. I just didn't want to seem blond to the other side of the argument.

I noticed something when talking about this. When people are united by a common hate, their efforts are so much more enthusiastic then when fueled by good. Although when things revolve around hate, there is always a bitter end.

The thing is that I do not deny that I find him evil. Even if he did not do one good thing to us, we can not objectively claim that he was evil.

How would we decide what is evil? Killing? Raping? Robbing someone? Stealing food for your family to survive? We just can't judge it objectively. Every action we make is neither good nor evil. We might like it or we might not like it, but it is not absolutely evil or good. It is neutral. Raping and killing a five year old, buying a pack of coffee, giving your life to save someone from a burning house ... all neutral and equal actions. Objectively.

As for Hitler, if we judge him fairly, we might have to admit that he did the best thing for us anyone ever did. Do you think we would nearly live in the rather peaceful and prosperous paradise Americans and Europeans live now, if it wasn't for the cruels of the second world war? To me it changed the world for the better, though, admittedly in an obscene way.

Well, I guess I will finish with a very intelligent quote that I think shows how I feel. And how it is:


"Maybe there ain't no sin and there ain't no virtue, they's just what people does. Some things folks do is nice and some ain't so nice, and that's all any man's got a right to say. "

- Jim Casy in The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck

Bardock42, I disagree completely. What you should accomplish in life is happiness and happiness for others. Maybe there is some benefit to killing, that humans can't understand, but what are the chances? Maybe we are just here on earth without a "mission" (liking killing.) Besides, the idea that we humans would come to life through an amazing evolution from the first bacteria, then learn that killing is good is a counter-intuitive concept.

I love talking like this because it changes your perspective so much. it makes you think, and you find a way to express your opinion in a descriptive manner.

And Bardock, I have also come to your conclusion as well. Who are we to say the world would be better if War World II had never happened? Maybe there would be smaller, more frequent wars if this had never happened and shown the true terror of prolonged war. And taught us about what it really was.

Maybe the Holocaust was a blessing in disguise. A gruesome disguise no matter.

Originally posted by KingTut
Bardock42, I disagree completely. What you should accomplish in life is happiness and happiness for others. Maybe there is some benefit to killing, that humans can't understand, but what are the chances? Maybe we are just here on earth without a "mission" (liking killing.) Besides, the idea that we humans would come to life through an amazing evolution from the first bacteria, then learn that killing is good is a counter-intuitive concept.

If your mother was murdered would have the same opinion. Or anybody you care about. If they died would you just take with a grain of salt believing in your heart it was somebody else's personal mission.

Was it any Nazi's personal mission to pack children into a gas chamber? I'm sorry, but I completely disagree what you just said. As interesting and thought provoking as it is.

If it is our personal mission, than who am I supposed to kill? And what about you? Who are you supposed to kill? Every on this earth is somebody's baby. Somebody's rock, or somebody's loved one. And how can you find it in yourself to take that away from them?

I can't find any "deep message" in murder. It's an action, it's a crime. What about the golden rule inscribed in the bible, "Do unto others, as you wish to be done unto you."

ok its this simple..... whats not evil about wanting to take over the world and imprisoning all non "true germans" ermm

Originally posted by SpadeKing
ok its this simple..... whats not evil about wanting to take over the world and imprisoning all non "true germans" ermm

If you are a true German what is evil about it? If Aryans really are better then all those that are not, if they really are a superior race then what's evil about it? If they kill creatures that have no soul and that God wishes to die then what's so wrong about that?

No you can state a million things wrong with it, but the fact of the matter remains that they had different views. And that is not evil, that is a conflict of interest and opinion. And unless different opinions (especially the one's very different from yours) are evil, then you can't consider this evil.



Murdering a murderer on the loose? Bad? Good, Evil, wrong, right?

A murder almost always has a purpose, that purpose might be considered a delusional purpose by most people here including in most cases myself, but it still has a purpose. The person that kills finds this particular purpose more important then the life of the person that is going to die. Making it justified in his or her own according to most people warped view.

The views of the majority in a democratic country decide what laws should be followed and how things should work. They don't decide what's right and wrong for individual people or country's outside of their own.

Originally posted by Fishy
If you are a true German what is evil about it? If Aryans really are better then all those that are not, if they really are a superior race then what's evil about it? If they kill creatures that have no soul and that God wishes to die then what's so wrong about that?

No you can state a million things wrong with it, but the fact of the matter remains that they had different views. And that is not evil, that is a conflict of interest and opinion. And unless different opinions (especially the one's very different from yours) are evil, then you can't consider this evil.

did I say true germans were evil? no I dont think so. I said imprisoning all non-"true germans: dont remember calling them evil ermm

Originally posted by SpadeKing
did I say true germans were evil? no I dont think so. I said imprisoning all non-"true germans: dont remember calling them evil ermm

I'm a german. n-n
./raises arm and belts off Nazi slang

Originally posted by Ambience
I'm a german. n-n
./raises arm and belts off Nazi slang

you're evil

jk.... I find women in uniform with power attractive though naughty

Originally posted by Ambience
It's cold blooded murder. Killing an innocent child, a baby.
They are defenceless, and they just threw them into the fire without mercy. They slaughtered them. Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
How is that evil?

Originally posted by SpadeKing
did I say true germans were evil? no I dont think so. I said imprisoning all non-"true germans: dont remember calling them evil ermm

Well I'm sure there are people out there that would consider all Germans evil. And there will be people out there that will consider all non Germans evil...

Originally posted by Fishy
Well I'm sure there are people out there that would consider all Germans evil. And there will be people out there that will consider all non Germans evil...

I bet I can find someone at my school for all racist types

Originally posted by Ambience
If your mother was murdered would have the same opinion. Or anybody you care about. If they died would you just take with a grain of salt believing in your heart it was somebody else's personal mission.

Was it any Nazi's personal mission to pack children into a gas chamber? I'm sorry, but I completely disagree what you just said. As interesting and thought provoking as it is.

If it is our personal mission, than who am I supposed to kill? And what about you? Who are you supposed to kill? Every on this earth is somebody's baby. Somebody's rock, or somebody's loved one. And how can you find it in yourself to take that away from them?

I can't find any "deep message" in murder. It's an action, it's a crime. What about the golden rule inscribed in the bible, "Do unto others, as you wish to be done unto you."

You misunderstood me. I am agreeing with you.

Originally posted by Ambience
I love talking like this because it changes your perspective so much. it makes you think, and you find a way to express your opinion in a descriptive manner.

And Bardock, I have also come to your conclusion as well. Who are we to say the world would be better if War World II had never happened? Maybe there would be smaller, more frequent wars if this had never happened and shown the true terror of prolonged war. And taught us about what it really was.

Maybe the Holocaust was a blessing in disguise. A gruesome disguise no matter.


But where does it stop? How many crazy dictators must we allow to attempt genocide before humanity realizes that it's bad? There has to be an end. Besides, no one learns they're history anyways. Hitler himself followed Napoleon's clumsy and failed march into Russia. Why are we in Iraq when we should have learned from the millions of other guerilla wars before (including Vietnam) that you can't win against guerillas?

Originally posted by KingTut
But where does it stop? How many crazy dictators must we allow to attempt genocide before humanity realizes that it's bad? There has to be an end. Besides, no one learns they're history anyways. Hitler himself followed Napoleon's clumsy and failed march into Russia. Why are we in Iraq when we should have learned from the millions of other guerilla wars before (including Vietnam) that you can't win against guerillas?

I don't see your point here....

We should never allow anything to happen that we don't support if we have the power to stop it. The western nations mostly agree that genocide is a bad thing, therefor they should do whatever is in their power to stop it from happening. At least if they consider it a worthy cause. Which they ussually will because Genocide is just considered as pure evil.

But now imagine that you are a Muslim/Christian in Africa. Your government is run by the other side and gives all the jobs to the other religion. Your neighbors have had the exact same problem and through a little war they got the power. You can get the weapons no problem so what do you do? You do the exact same thing. Now you have been brought up to hate the other side since you were born because they never even cared about you, and you were considered as nothing.

Killing them all would then be very easy, and not only that probably the only way to achieve what you really want, and what all your fellow oppressed people would want. And before you know it, you have a war were both sides try to destroy the other side completely. Genocide or just logical thinking and a necessity in order to make the country and yourself survive?

After all they just don't have the money to make both people happy.

A class of cultures is already happening in rich western country's and we are having a hard time dealing with it. Poor other country's that don't have the resources the power or the money that we have should have a far more difficult time. Genocide is a possible answer to those problems they are having.

Originally posted by Fishy
I don't see your point here....

We should never allow anything to happen that we don't support if we have the power to stop it. The western nations mostly agree that genocide is a bad thing, therefor they should do whatever is in their power to stop it from happening. At least if they consider it a worthy cause. Which they ussually will because Genocide is just considered as pure evil.

But now imagine that you are a Muslim/Christian in Africa. Your government is run by the other side and gives all the jobs to the other religion. Your neighbors have had the exact same problem and through a little war they got the power. You can get the weapons no problem so what do you do? You do the exact same thing. Now you have been brought up to hate the other side since you were born because they never even cared about you, and you were considered as nothing.

Killing them all would then be very easy, and not only that probably the only way to achieve what you really want, and what all your fellow oppressed people would want. And before you know it, you have a war were both sides try to destroy the other side completely. Genocide or just logical thinking and a necessity in order to make the country and yourself survive?

After all they just don't have the money to make both people happy.

A class of cultures is already happening in rich western country's and we are having a hard time dealing with it. Poor other country's that don't have the resources the power or the money that we have should have a far more difficult time. Genocide is a possible answer to those problems they are having.

First off, next time I'd appreciate it if you read the quote so you'd know the context I was using. Read the quote and then reread what I said so you know I was actually saying, because your post has nothing to do with mine. Second, if you are saying that genocide is good because it allows support for the group that committed the genocide, then I am going to have to disagree with you.

1. In context of Hitler, who this thread is actually about, Germany had more than enough resources to "support" the Jewish population.

2. Did you consider that a person might choose to live without as much money when faced with death?

Originally posted by KingTut
First off, next time I'd appreciate it if you read the quote so you'd know the context I was using. Read the quote and then reread what I said so you know I was actually saying, because your post has nothing to do with mine. Second, if you are saying that genocide is good because it allows support for the group that committed the genocide, then I am going to have to disagree with you.

1. In context of Hitler, who this thread is actually about, Germany had more than enough resources to "support" the Jewish population.

2. Did you consider that a person might choose to live without as much money when faced with death?

I still don't really get your point, we should learn from the past? Well duh, of course we should and lots of people have. But Hitler obviously had different idea's on the past then most today. Hindsight is always so easy.

Second, I am not saying genocide is justified because it helps the group that committed it, I'm saying that it's good for them. And if you consider yourself or your group more important then anything else, then genocide is a pretty reasonable step to take. Or at least an understandable one.

Now as for the other points.

1.) Germany was shit poor, what Hitler did brought the country out of a depression and into a freaking world power, that could stand up against the 3 greatest powers in the world at that date and still hold on. It wasn't until all 3 united that they were screwed. I would say he sure as hell did something right. Besides what does it matter that they could support the Jews living there, what mattered is that they didn't want too, and that they would be in theory purer richer smarter and more powerful without them.

2.) Does what I consider even matter? The extermination of the Jews had many reasons. How easy they were to pick on was of course one of those reasons. Their great wealth another. Hitler had hoped to make the world a better place without the Jews. A better place for all Aryans. And perhaps the entire world. He justified genocide, simple as that.

For him for a lot of Germans the extermination of the Jews was seen as a good thing.

Originally posted by Fishy
I still don't really get your point, we should learn from the past? Well duh, of course we should and lots of people have. But Hitler obviously had different idea's on the past then most today. Hindsight is always so easy.

Second, I am not saying genocide is justified because it helps the group that committed it, I'm saying that it's good for them. And if you consider yourself or your group more important then anything else, then genocide is a pretty reasonable step to take. Or at least an understandable one.

Now as for the other points.

1.) Germany was shit poor, what Hitler did brought the country out of a depression and into a freaking world power, that could stand up against the 3 greatest powers in the world at that date and still hold on. It wasn't until all 3 united that they were screwed. I would say he sure as hell did something right. Besides what does it matter that they could support the Jews living there, what mattered is that they didn't want too, and that they would be in theory purer richer smarter and more powerful without them.

2.) Does what I consider even matter? The extermination of the Jews had many reasons. How easy they were to pick on was of course one of those reasons. Their great wealth another. Hitler had hoped to make the world a better place without the Jews. A better place for all Aryans. And perhaps the entire world. He justified genocide, simple as that.

For him for a lot of Germans the extermination of the Jews was seen as a good thing.

My previous point is this: No one cares about the past, or realizes that it has any significance today. I agree, it is a duh point. However, no one follows through on this important point.

On this post, I just have say that this thread is about Hitler being good or bad, not about military power. If exterminating the Jews helped Hitler conquer Europe, if that is your point, I would have to agree, however, it does nothing to rebutt my point.

Originally posted by KingTut
My previous point is this: No one cares about the past, or realizes that it has any significance today. I agree, it is a duh point. However, no one follows through on this important point.

On this post, I just have say that this thread is about Hitler being good or bad, not about military power. If exterminating the Jews helped Hitler conquer Europe, if that is your point, I would have to agree, however, it does nothing to rebutt my point.

Actually killing the Jews was a waste of time after he got power.

But your original point that we should learn from the past and because of that stop genocide is still wrong.

Genocide is only good or evil in the eye of the beholder and has been good and or evil plenty of times in the past depending on which side you were on. The killing of the Jews wasn't bad, killing Muslims/Christians/Whatever isn't necessarily bad either. It's just a point of view. It isn't right or wrong. So Hitler wasn't evil, and calling all genocide evil without first knowing the circumstances or the reasoning behind it is also a foolish thing to do.

Originally posted by Fishy
Actually killing the Jews was a waste of time after he got power.

But your original point that we should learn from the past and because of that stop genocide is still wrong.

Genocide is only good or evil in the eye of the beholder and has been good and or evil plenty of times in the past depending on which side you were on. The killing of the Jews wasn't bad, killing Muslims/Christians/Whatever isn't necessarily bad either. It's just a point of view. It isn't right or wrong. So Hitler wasn't evil, and calling all genocide evil without first knowing the circumstances or the reasoning behind it is also a foolish thing to do.

I know why Hitler did it. I'm not dumb. He did it for the same reason an immature middle school student tells rumors behind somebodies to get other people to laugh at them: popularity. Even if you are right that genocide is ethically okay by the people who commit it, (which is dumb quite frankly) it did nothing to help Germany, only Hitler himself.

However, on the other point, you wouldn't want someone to kill you. That's why genocide is bad.

Originally posted by KingTut
I know why Hitler did it. I'm not dumb. He did it for the same reason an immature middle school student tells rumors behind somebodies to get other people to laugh at them: popularity. Even if you are right that genocide is ethically okay by the people who commit it, (which is dumb quite frankly) it did nothing to help Germany, only Hitler himself.

However, on the other point, you wouldn't want someone to kill you. That's why genocide is bad.

No that's why me being killed would be bad for me, it wouldn't be for the one that kills me....

Well not necessarily.

Originally posted by Fishy
No that's why me being killed would be bad for me, it wouldn't be for the one that kills me....

Well not necessarily.

The net of happiness would be lower if you died because it would end all happiness you might have for the rest of your life, while slightly enhancing that of the killer. Assuming he got all of your wealth.

Not necessarily is right though. Killing the Jews limited Hitlers workforce.

Originally posted by KingTut
The net of happiness would be lower if you died because it would end all happiness you might have for the rest of your life, while slightly enhancing that of the killer. Assuming he got all of your wealth.

Not necessarily is right though. Killing the Jews limited Hitlers workforce.

It did, but he still did what he thought was best for the world, so really not all that evil...

Originally posted by Fishy
It did, but he still did what he thought was best for the world, so really not all that evil...

Okay, what do you understand by evil when you use this word?

Originally posted by Lord Melkor
Okay, what do you understand by evil when you use this word?

Evil is an opinion, like I've said a few times already.

It does not exist, what is evil for some is not for others. Killing can be considered evil or it can be considered good depending on who you kill under what circumstances and for what reasons.

This is simply how the world works, and people decide when it's good to kill people or when it's not good to kill people on their own. Nobody else has to answer for things like that, the only thing they have to worry about is the law. Which follows or at least should follow the wish of the majority of the population and should therefor be listened to, if not you should move. But everybody living in a country chooses to do so and should not complain when fined or arrested for breaking any laws in that country.

That still doesn't mean however that laws are right or wrong, juts that decide what is right or wrong based on the morale views of the majority of the population. Which can differ greatly from the morale views of a minority or another country.

And unless you would know all the answers and you would indeed be God you can't know which morale views are superior to the others and therefor should not judge them from an absolute standpoint, just from your own personal view.

So yes Hitler in my opinion was evil, but to a thread like this there can only be one answer.

No, Hitler was not evil to everything and everyone and some people would consider what he did was good.

Well, than I cannot argue your point, as I myself don`t believe in "good" being objective force.

But note that every sane individual has sense of right and wrong, which is not always the same as law. It is good to accept the beliefs of others, but sometimes we have to declare the beliefs of others as wrong, because they are too much opposed to our views. If someone`s beliefs include hating, persecuting or even eradicating entire groups of people I am going to consider it evil and oppose it, even if it is supported by law or majority.

Sometimes it is quite difficult to diffretionate between our personal and absolute standpoint. Moral relativism can be quite dangerou in my opinion. We have to defend out fundamental beliefs.

woah, this thread stands upon shallow ground, an unsteady subject...
My opinion is that Hitler was, in ways quite evil. It is also widely believed that he was both quite intelligent and slightly unstable himself, proving the fact that there is a fine line between a genious and a madman.

He built the Autobahn, generated a car for the people that wasn't half bad and inspired a nation to unify entirely down to the last child.
However we all know about his crimes against humanity and the fact that the Jews did NOT deserve to be culled, no matter their opinion.

The Nazi Regime did so well due to his enigmatic leadership and unfaltering confidence in his own people, the Germans broke free of their debts owed from the first world war and reclaimed themselves as an indepentant and stable country, which in most fact was true... considering that this all began in Germany, they swept across Europe in a fashion most view as a bloodthirsty tide but I view it as a testament to their true power for their sized nation.

The Dictator aspect of the Nazi regime is where It looses it's vote with me... one man's opinion should not sway that of the law. in the end, the culling of the Jewish nation was the anchor-point of their downfall and the primary reason as to whenever the their symbol or even their name is scoffed at and insulted.

Hitler in a few words:

Leader
Genius/Madman
Mass-Murderer
Dictator

the bad points outweigh the good... so yes... He's quite Evil...

Originally posted by Aliies
woah, this thread stands upon shallow ground, an unsteady subject...
My opinion is that Hitler was, in ways quite evil. It is also widely believed that he was both quite intelligent and slightly unstable himself, proving the fact that there is a fine line between a genious and a madman.

He built the Autobahn, generated a car for the people that wasn't half bad and inspired a nation to unify entirely down to the last child.
However we all know about his crimes against humanity and the fact that the Jews did NOT deserve to be culled, no matter their opinion.

The Nazi Regime did so well due to his enigmatic leadership and unfaltering confidence in his own people, the Germans broke free of their debts owed from the first world war and reclaimed themselves as an indepentant and stable country, which in most fact was true... considering that this all began in Germany, they swept across Europe in a fashion most view as a bloodthirsty tide but I view it as a testament to their true power for their sized nation.

The Dictator aspect of the Nazi regime is where It looses it's vote with me... one man's opinion should not sway that of the law. in the end, the culling of the Jewish nation was the anchor-point of their downfall and the primary reason as to whenever the their symbol or even their name is scoffed at and insulted.

Hitler in a few words:

Leader
Genius/Madman
Mass-Murderer
Dictator

the bad points outweigh the good... so yes... He's quite Evil...

Why? I see three good points and one bad, so he was good, right?


Bottom line is, you don't get to choose what is good or evil. You may say what you like or dislike, but that's it.

Originally posted by Lord Melkor
Well, than I cannot argue your point, as I myself don`t believe in "good" being objective force.

But note that every sane individual has sense of right and wrong, which is not always the same as law. It is good to accept the beliefs of others, but sometimes we have to declare the beliefs of others as wrong, because they are too much opposed to our views. If someone`s beliefs include hating, persecuting or even eradicating entire groups of people I am going to consider it evil and oppose it, even if it is supported by law or majority.

Sometimes it is quite difficult to diffretionate between our personal and absolute standpoint. Moral relativism can be quite dangerou in my opinion. We have to defend out fundamental beliefs.

Agreed, but only because I would want too. Not because I am right, but simply because I could not be happy with myself if I was wrong. So I would try to prove my right or just get it.

Which would make us nothing better then terrorists really.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why? I see three good points and one bad, so he was good, right?


Bottom line is, you don't get to choose what is good or evil. You may say what you like or dislike, but that's it. Three good points? Madman, Dictator and Mass-Murderer are hardly positives...
I put madman and Genius because of the fine line between them.
so what? you think that either mass-murderer or being a dictator is a good thing?

Originally posted by Aliies
Three good points? Madman, Dictator and Mass-Murderer are hardly positives...
I put madman and Genius because of the fine line between them.
so what? you think that either mass-murderer or being a dictator is a good thing?
Not your place to decide.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not your place to decide.

Whose then? Should people like him not be judged? Sometimes apathy brings grear harm.

It seems like you just have discovered that everything is relative and you seem quite proud of this discovery..... but we cannot go far this road, it leads to nihilism in my opinion.

Originally posted by Lord Melkor
Whose then? Should people like him not be judged? Sometimes apathy brings grear harm.

It seems like you just have discovered that everything is relative and you seem quite proud of this discovery..... but we cannot go far this road, it leads to nihilism in my opinion.

No ones. If it is yours, it is just as well Hitler's and he didn't find it evil ergo he isn't evil. And you can judge him. For yourself. Or if he'd still be alive in a court. Just saying he was evil (implying that it is an absolute truth) is nonsense. So, if you know about morals being relative....why do you not just accept this?

Nah, I discovered that some time ago, I just still argue it, cause people don't accept or understand it. And it doesn't need to lead to nihilism. Why should it?

Originally posted by Aliies

He inspired a nation to unify entirely down to the last child.


no he didn't my Grandfather's family fled Germany before WW2 started because they could see what was coming

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
no he didn't my Grandfather's family fled Germany before WW2 started because they could see what was coming

He was the smart one then... Your Grandfather, I mean...

Originally posted by Bardock42
No ones. If it is yours, it is just as well Hitler's and he didn't find it evil ergo he isn't evil. And you can judge him. For yourself. Or if he'd still be alive in a court. Just saying he was evil (implying that it is an absolute truth) is nonsense. So, if you know about morals being relative....why do you not just accept this?

Nah, I discovered that some time ago, I just still argue it, cause people don't accept or understand it. And it doesn't need to lead to nihilism. Why should it?

Thats all well and good, and I agree, Evil isn't a proclamation of a lawful charge, it's the actions that caused him to be considered so, then again, meaning that he was evil to the point of view to those who viewed him as such... his followers, per se didn't think he was evil... most of them anyway, I'm sure.'

And as you said before, It's not my place to decide but only for others. Everyone is entitled to value their own opinion, even if not sharted nor accepted by everyone else. I think he's Evil, but I'm not going to force the issue nor try to make you see it from my view... Not exactly impartial but as close to the matter as one may be on such a touchy subject.

Then again, burn those who cannonize him for his actions... I'll get the stake

Originally posted by Lord Coal
I think, in my opinion at least, the difference between 'unsavoury' and 'evil' is intent, yes.

I personally don't believe Hitler's intent was evil, rather he was thoroughly misguided and lost his way eventually. If he believed that wiping out all the Jews he could find would make the world a better place, then what he was doing was what he believed was right, therefore his intent was to do the right thing. Obviously what he did wasn't actually the right thing to do, but the difference, I think, is the intent behind it. You see the problem is that from begining you have stated that intent is all that matters if he believe he was doing right therefore he can not be bad. By that defnition then no he isn't evil he just went about things the wrong way.

Although many people would argue differently. For most people evil is simply the willingness to destroy good. Hitler killed many good people including children and women who had nothing to do with war or despair so therefore even if he wanted to do good the fact we was willing to step over the line by killing many people he became evil.

Originally posted by Newjak
You see the problem is that from begining you have stated that intent is all that matters if he believe he was doing right therefore he can not be bad. By that defnition then no he isn't evil he just went about things the wrong way.

Although many people would argue differently. For most people evil is simply the willingness to destroy good. Hitler killed many good people including children and women who had nothing to do with war or despair so therefore even if he wanted to do good the fact we was willing to step over the line by killing many people he became evil.

But that's the problem right there.

For some people the willingness to destroy good is evil, for some others it's not. So it's not evil to everybody

Originally posted by Fishy
But that's the problem right there.

For some people the willingness to destroy good is evil, for some others it's not. So it's not evil to everybody You see there is no problem for if you consider something good then anything done to hurt it is evil no matter how you look at it

Quick summary:

yes, he was definitely evil by any rational or useful definition of the word.

And if you disagree- indeed, refusse to even engage with the possibility- because of your believe in relatavism that is simply because you are a mental pygmy in that area. It would be a fair conclusion from a teenager just finding out the very beginning of the long journey that is moral thought, but one only worthy of contempt elsewhere.

Luckily, such views are entirely out of step from modern political and ethical thought, so they can be consigned to the corner where they belong, and either ignored or laughed at.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Quick summary:

yes, he was definitely evil by any rational or useful definition of the word.

And if you disagree- indeed, refusse to even engage with the possibility- because of your believe in relatavism that is simply because you are a mental pygmy in that area. It would be a fair conclusion from a teenager just finding out the very beginning of the long journey that is moral thought, but one only worthy of contempt elsewhere.

Luckily, such views are entirely out of step from modern political and ethical thought, so they can be consigned to the corner where they belong, and either ignored or laughed at. Still a bunch of bullshit.

Though i agree partly. By the msot useful definition of the word, you (and others, but not everyone) find him evil. Doesn't matter though. He isn't just generally evil because you wish to define it that way.

You can cry bullshit, but that doesn't impress me any. You've still put nothing more than cursory thought into this and you refuse to move on, which is saddening.

The amusing way is the way you are SO convinced you have found the ultimate answer there, which makes you is inflexible and luaghable as the most committed and dogmatic religious nut.

It's like a child finding out there is no Santa Claus thinking that he has made some ultimate breakthrough of knowledge.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You can cry bullshit, but that doesn't impress me any. You've still put nothing more than cursory thought into this and you refuse to move on, which is saddening.

The amusing way is the way you are SO convinced you have found the ultimate answer there, which makes you is inflexible and luaghable as the most committed and dogmatic religious nut.

It's like a child finding out there is no Santa Claus thinking that he has made some ultimate breakthrough of knowledge.
I am not trying to impress you, just calling a spade a spade.

You can insult my view all you want. Sure it is simple. But it is most likely. You are the one claiming the moon is made of cheese. Go, prove it to me.

Hah! That example was contempible. You cannot PROVE that morals are relative, whereas we can prove that the Moon is made of rock. That was dreadfully adolescent as well, trying to turn my words- well, actually Douglas Adams', and a shame because he was not a relatavist- against me, but you failed totally, making an ass of yourself in the bargain.

The fact is that this is a very complicated philosophical area, running from Aristoltle to Hulme to Kant to Rawls; our modern social structure in the West is founded on agreement with 20th century moral absolutists because their arguments were found to be convincing.

Whether you are trying to impress me or not is pretty much irrelevant. Yout hink it is a spade, but then religious zealots are convinced they are right about their God, and your blind faith in the relatavist concept is about as intelligent.

You are hiding behind a rock, a rock that enlightened thought moved on from a long time ago. Stay behind your primitive rock if you wish; it makes statement on your character.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Hah! That example was contempible. You cannot PROVE that morals are relative, whereas we can prove that the Moon is made of rock. That was dreadfully adolescent as well, trying to turn my words- well, actually Douglas Adams', and a shame because he was not a relatavist- against me, but you failed totally, making an ass of yourself in the bargain.

The fact is that this is a very complicated philosophical area, running from Aristoltle to Hulme to Kant to Rawls; our modern social structure in the West is founded on agreement with 20th century moral absolutists because their arguments were found to be convincing.

Whether you are trying to impress me or not is pretty much irrelevant. Yout hink it is a spade, but then religious zealots are convinced they are right about their God, and your blind faith in the relatavist concept is about as intelligent.

You are hiding behind a rock, a rock that enlightened thought moved on from a long time ago. Stay behind your primitive rock if you wish; it makes statement on your character.

Nah

Proof that there is God: None -> There is no God (your (Douglas Adams') reasoning)
Proof that there are absolute morals: None -> There are absolute morals (your reasoning)

Can't figure it out, help me, please.

Not at all! Douglas said- and he spells this out clearly- that the information we have acitvely displaces the role of God, that we have already explained the whole deal and God is not there, therefore God does not exist. it was NOT simply a matter that his existence could not be proven,. Douglas was a strong atheist- he didn't 'not believe in God', he believed there is no God.

A great shame you are misuing his words, because the situation is absolutely not the same as regards to morality.

A lot of Douglas' works were about absolute morals. He was always interested in the concept. He parodied oou philosophical search for that truth, making it a literal search, as if the rulebook could be found somewhere.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Not at all! Douglas said- and he spells this out clearly- that the information we have acitvely displaces the role of God, that we have already explained the whole deal and God is not there, therefore God does not exist. it was NOT simply a matter that his existence could not be proven,. Douglas was a strong atheist- he didn't 'not believe in God', he believed there is no God.

A great shame you are misuing his words, because the situation is absolutely not the same as regards to morality.

A lot of Douglas' works were about absolute morals. He was always interested in the concept. He parodied oou philosophical search for that truth, making it a literal search, as if the rulebook could be found somewhere.

The concept is interesting. It just lacks any existence. Or at least evidence of existence.

Can you explain to me how it could exist? That would almost be enough anyways. Even if we assumed there was a God, I still don't see a chance for there to be absolute morals.

Where do they come from?
Why are they absolute?
What are they?
How do we know that they are what you say they are?

Well, you do realise they are many questions relating to the basic scientific nature of the Universe that we cannot answer similar questions to yours to any satisfaction, even on basic points such as Gravity. Yet scientifically we can still observe its evidence and deduce its workings. Philosophical debates on the area of morals do the same for ethical areas. There have been many, many ideas about where it comes from- innate to all life, innate to Humans, innate to the nature of the Universe- that would take up many hundreds of pages to run through here.

"Why" are they absolute would be the easiest one to answer- because they apply independantly to the point of view of the person committing the action. Regardless of whether a person THINKS something is right or wrong, the action has a quality of rightness or wrongness independant of that point of view. That;'s why such a thing would be absolute.

What are they? if you ever meet a person claiming a definitve answer to that, that person is almost certainly religious. The whole area of absolutism is built around the nevber ending search to discern them.

As to how we KNOW... we don't. people just try their best. Again, that is why they are so debated. But our entire modern cultural structure is built upon the concept.

To put it simply...if you consider The Death Penalty to be wrong and evil. Then by all means Hitler is beyond wrong and evil. Gas chambers and large furnaces...yep...he was evil.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, you do realise they are many questions relating to the basic scientific nature of the Universe that we cannot answer similar questions to yours to any satisfaction, even on basic points such as Gravity. Yet scientifically we can still observe its evidence and deduce its workings. Philosophical debates on the area of morals do the same for ethical areas. There have been many, many ideas about where it comes from- innate to all life, innate to Humans, innate to the nature of the Universe- that would take up many hundreds of pages to run through here.

"Why" are they absolute would be the easiest one to answer- because they apply independantly to the point of view of the person committing the action. Regardless of whether a person THINKS something is right or wrong, the action has a quality of rightness or wrongness independant of that point of view. That;'s why such a thing would be absolute.

What are they? if you ever meet a person claiming a definitve answer to that, that person is almost certainly religious. The whole area of absolutism is built around the nevber ending search to discern them.

As to how we KNOW... we don't. people just try their best. Again, that is why they are so debated. But our entire modern cultural structure is built upon the concept.


So, basically you believe in some mysterious rules that we can't quite explain where they come from, what they are, why they are important, why they are absolute, that we basically know nothing about?

Well, I dunno, I am not convinced. It...it just doesn't quite work out for me yet.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You can cry bullshit, but that doesn't impress me any. You've still put nothing more than cursory thought into this and you refuse to move on, which is saddening.

The amusing way is the way you are SO convinced you have found the ultimate answer there, which makes you is inflexible and luaghable as the most committed and dogmatic religious nut.

It's like a child finding out there is no Santa Claus thinking that he has made some ultimate breakthrough of knowledge.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Quick summary:

yes, he was definitely evil by any rational or useful definition of the word.

And if you disagree- indeed, refusse to even engage with the possibility- because of your believe in relatavism that is simply because you are a mental pygmy in that area. It would be a fair conclusion from a teenager just finding out the very beginning of the long journey that is moral thought, but one only worthy of contempt elsewhere.

Luckily, such views are entirely out of step from modern political and ethical thought, so they can be consigned to the corner where they belong, and either ignored or laughed at.

Hear, Hear!!!

Originally posted by Aliies
Hear, Hear!!!

My friend, you do not know what you are supporting there. Read again. And think. For yourself. A bit. Please.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
To put it simply...if you consider The Death Penalty to be wrong and evil. Then by all means Hitler is beyond wrong and evil. Gas chambers and large furnaces...yep...he was evil.

What if we do not consider those things evil?

Originally posted by Bardock42
My friend, you do not know what you are supporting there. Read again. And think. For yourself. A bit. Please.

Oh, I wouldn't be too sure of that, I'm sure

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, you do realise they are many questions relating to the basic scientific nature of the Universe that we cannot answer similar questions to yours to any satisfaction, even on basic points such as Gravity. Yet scientifically we can still observe its evidence and deduce its workings. Philosophical debates on the area of morals do the same for ethical areas. There have been many, many ideas about where it comes from- innate to all life, innate to Humans, innate to the nature of the Universe- that would take up many hundreds of pages to run through here.

"Why" are they absolute would be the easiest one to answer- because they apply independantly to the point of view of the person committing the action. Regardless of whether a person THINKS something is right or wrong, the action has a quality of rightness or wrongness independant of that point of view. That;'s why such a thing would be absolute.

What are they? if you ever meet a person claiming a definitve answer to that, that person is almost certainly religious. The whole area of absolutism is built around the nevber ending search to discern them.

As to how we KNOW... we don't. people just try their best. Again, that is why they are so debated. But our entire modern cultural structure is built upon the concept.

Dammit Ush, you're thinking these things out on exactly the same path as I do... most of the time, that is

And I agree entirely, It's not some 'powers that be' cripe, the point is that when people say that something is absolute, it's a matter of perspective: to be absolute, everyone must think the same way about it and we all know that's impossible.

It's just like physics, there are people who now claim that phsics is a law that we should no longer be adhered to merely because it was a theory... A damn good one, mind you but a theory none the less.
Same with any religion, belief faith and the general strength of it's presence is soley depentant upon the scale of those who believe.

My point is, I enjoy debates in these threads because I never run in and say "I HAVE TEH ANSWER!!!" ^.^ My views are not influenced by the general train of thought but I consider every point made by people who DON'T claim they know the answers to these things, especially for conspiracy sheite. I never contest it either, but I merely say on the fact of this Thread that Slaughtering Jews alone made Hitler Evil, nothing else he did could make up for that, now you may protest but That's my case and I'm sticking to it though I don't expect anyone to follow suit.

Slaughtering Jews seems evil to you. Accepted.

Why is slaughtering Jews evil absolutely? (which would be what Ush claims. Which you "agree entirely" with.)

Also, your physics point made not much sense. Would you elaborate on it?

It was a theory stared by an Irishman who claimed he had invented an engine that ran at 110% efficiency, completely blowing Physics and Thermodynamics out the window.
In history, all that is needed is for one person to contest that which is widely known and believed in to start a revolution, of sorts.

Many people now start to question the laws written however long ago, physics was put into the firing line recently as many people try to consider a world without it, the challenge set by the Irish inventor was that he would not reveal his invention until people can get a grasp of aspects not defined by physics. In my opinion, he didn't invent anything, he's trying to get people to be creative without the laws of physics... If such a thing is possible... I'm currently sitting on the fence at the moment

and the pointv about agreeing with Ush, as I pointed out, he thinks along a similar line to me, his points and ideas seem quite relative: Hence I agree, but that does not make it absolute, we're just two people afterall

Originally posted by Aliies
It was a theory stared by an Irishman who claimed he had invented an engine that ran at 110% efficiency, completely blowing Physics and Thermodynamics out the window.
In history, all that is needed is for one person to contest that which is widely known and believed in to start a revolution, of sorts.

Many people now start to question the laws written however long ago, physics was put into the firing line recently as many people try to consider a world without it, the challenge set by the Irish inventor was that he would not reveal his invention until people can get a grasp of aspects not defined by physics. In my opinion, he didn't invent anything, he's trying to get people to be creative without the laws of physics... If such a thing is possible... I'm currently sitting on the fence at the moment

and the pointv about agreeing with Ush, as I pointed out, he thinks along a similar line to me, his points and ideas seem quite relative: Hence I agree, but that does not make it absolute, we're just two people afterall

...

Well, disregarding the off-topic stuff, though....interesting, I would say the way you talk you agree with my view that there are no absolute morals, but only those we chose...while you still say you agree with Ush.

To me, Hitler was "bad" (as in I don't like what he did), but if I claim he is evil I imply that it is an absolute truth which I can't know and don't believe. I don't see what these absolute morals should be. Why they should be the absolute morals. And where they come from.

Yet again, well made point... EVIL is an overused term, a bit to Old-world for modern terminology yet still widely used.
To say he was a bad man is probably more accurate, by calling him evil, all I can think about is a little spiked tail and a pair of little horns jutting out of his noggin

I would say that to be accurate, Hitler was widely accepted as a bad man becuase of the massacres, a point to which I agree, yet there are some good points about him, yet I won't go into it to avoid cannonizing the man accidentally...

Originally posted by Bardock42

What if we do not consider those things evil? The problem with this phrase is that by all accounts a word game that many people like to play when they have no other reasoning to prove a point.

This same logic can be said on any subject matter for instance if someone goes up and says an orange is an aorange and apple is an apple by your account if someone was to say no and orange is an apple and an apple is an orange they would not be wrong why because it is all perspective but *** doesn't matter on the name. The apple whether it be called a potatoe is still a red round object grown on trees with a very defintive core.

You see what I'm getting at it doesn't matter how you word it whether you believe it or not the point is Hitler was amajor contrinuter to the loss of life. Call it whatever you will Murder, Killing, the means to an end unless you want to justify that the taking of a person's life energies is alright be my guest.
The fact is that life as a substance is looked favorably upon and the elimination of it is deemd wrong well if it is wrong it can't be right therefore it can't be good therefore it must be evil.

Unless you want to keep playing words games actually tell me why Murder of weak people is a good thing

General question, what is up with all the absolutists and personal attacks? "Adolescent view", "Word game people like to play when they have no other reasoning". Anyways.

Originally posted by Newjak
The problem with this phrase is that by all accounts a word game that many people like to play when they have no other reasoning to prove a point.

This same logic can be said on any subject matter for instance if someone goes up and says an orange is an aorange and apple is an apple by your account if someone was to say no and orange is an apple and an apple is an orange they would not be wrong why because it is all perspective but *** doesn't matter on the name. The apple whether it be called a potatoe is still a red round object grown on trees with a very defintive core.

You see what I'm getting at it doesn't matter how you word it whether you believe it or not the point is Hitler was amajor contrinuter to the loss of life. Call it whatever you will Murder, Killing, the means to an end unless you want to justify that the taking of a person's life energies is alright be my guest.
The fact is that life as a substance is looked favorably upon and the elimination of it is deemd wrong well if it is wrong it can't be right therefore it can't be good therefore it must be evil.

Unless you want to keep playing words games actually tell me why Murder of weak people is a good thing

"The fact is that life as a substance is looked favorably upon and the elimination of it is deemd wrong well if it is wrong it can't be right therefore it can't be good therefore it must be evil."

That is subjectively. Not everyone views it that way. Just because the general consensus is that way doesn't make it absolute.

You guys are unable to provide any reasoning why absolute morals should exist. Also, you can't say what they are (my guess is, because they don't exist, but they might). You have nothing to base your arguments on. I on the other hand do not claim that something exists that we have zero evidence of, if that's a stupid and adolescent view...well, I don't know, I also don't believe in Santa, guess I must be a kid.

"Unless you want to keep playing words games actually tell me why Murder of weak people is a good thing"

I did not claim that, there is no evidence for it being good nor evil, so I just stay with the most reasonable, that does not require any further additions, it is neither. I don't make up a moral code, I don't know, but that's generally the scientific approach to things. You don't make things up that are unnecessary and lack any shred of evidence.

Originally posted by Bardock42
General question, what is up with all the absolutists and personal attacks? "Adolescent view", "Word game people like to play when they have no other reasoning". Anyways.



"The fact is that life as a substance is looked favorably upon and the elimination of it is deemd wrong well if it is wrong it can't be right therefore it can't be good therefore it must be evil."

That is subjectively. Not everyone views it that way. Just because the general consensus is that way doesn't make it absolute.

You guys are unable to provide any reasoning why absolute morals should exist. Also, you can't say what they are (my guess is, because they don't exist, but they might). You have nothing to base your arguments on. I on the other hand do not claim that something exists that we have zero evidence of, if that's a stupid and adolescent view...well, I don't know, I also don't believe in Santa, guess I must be a kid.

"Unless you want to keep playing words games actually tell me why Murder of weak people is a good thing"

I did not claim that, there is no evidence for it being good nor evil, so I just stay with the most reasonable, that does not require any further additions, it is neither. I don't make up a moral code, I don't know, but that's generally the scientific approach to things. You don't make things up that are unnecessary and lack any shred of evidence. You know for someone who doesn't believe in absolutes you are stating that there can absolutely be no absolutes quite definitively.

But that isn't point even if you do not believe in absolutes there are still degrees

Your whole arguement on Hitler not being Evil is that you believe that Evil is an absolute term but then in that acse there can't be anythinggood in the world can there. There also can't be straving people or people you are full because in your defense you say that absolutes don't exist therefore everything must be on a middle ground but in the world this sin't case. Everyone isn't well off in money, everyone isn't in the same type of houseing, isn't stockpiled with food.

You see there are degrees in this world. One person can be more unwanted then the next person can be. Your getting cuaght up on terms and trying to prove termionology that you accept. You believe that Evil is an absolute but the fact is that anyone not evil must be bad but Evil is just another way of describing a bad person hence why it can be tossed around alot. Now yes generally Evil is used to the larger degree of bad people but to sat Evil is an absolute is simple your personal opinion and doesn't actually prove anything and the fact reamins that while your private defenintion is one thing its real world use is quite different.

So yes Hitler is bad/evil to a greater degree then alot of people you yourself have admitted this.

So in essence you agree with everyone here in that Hitler was not a nice person so why don't you stop trying to feed us your personal look on life

Originally posted by Newjak
You know for someone who doesn't believe in absolutes you are stating that there can absolutely be no absolutes quite definitively.



Not true, there can very well be absolutes. It's just impossible to prove them or to know them. Therefor the saying that there are no absolutes in ethic matters is far safer then saying there are.



There are degrees in personal opinions yes.



No absolute good no. Everything that you feel is good is good for you but can be bad for somebody else the world whatever.



Is starving an ethical question? An opinion? No, starving is defined as having to little food to survive and thus dying because of lack of food. That is an absolute, it also doesn't question an opinion. It has nothing to do with morales values or any other kind of ethical matter and are thus completely different things.



Bad and evil are both relative terms. However bad can be used to describe other things. Like saying somebody did something bad for the country or the majority of the people. That is not necessarily evil but definitely bad. Thus a huge difference. Defying evil as doing something bad can be done of course, but then that would require people to agree on what is bad or not.

And the only way to do that is to know what would have happened if the supposed bad things didn't happen. You don't know that, so you don't know the answer either.



So the opinions of the majority are all of a sudden absolute? Because I believe that the people in this world have a hell of a hard time agreeing on almost everything and the general opinion changes a lot. A hell of a lot. A few hundred years ago we had different morales and values then we have now, does that mean that the absolute idea's of good and evil have changed through time? If so then they are not absolutes at all now are they? They are just the opinions of the majority of the people you get into contact with.

If not then what makes you think we know better then the people back then did?



I can't speak for Bardock but in my personal opinion and likely his as well, Hitler was an evil son of a *****. Notice the word opinion.



Personal opinion is irrelevant when you ask for an absolute. Which on ethical matters can not be given.

...


...


Okay, I will try to go through this point for point. But only once.


Okay


SHOWTIME


You can do it Bardock

:

Originally posted by Newjak
You know for someone who doesn't believe in absolutes you are stating that there can absolutely be no absolutes quite definitively.

Nah, it may seem that way, but I accept the possibility of them. Though I can't in any way imagine how they could be. Kinda like with God, don't believe in him/her/it, but accept that it might exist.




Originally posted by Newjak
But that isn't point even if you do not believe in absolutes there are still degrees

...

what



Originally posted by Newjak
Your whole arguement on Hitler not being Evil is that you believe that Evil is an absolute term but then in that acse there can't be anythinggood in the world can there. There also can't be straving people or people you are full because in your defense you say that absolutes don't exist therefore everything must be on a middle ground but in the world this sin't case. Everyone isn't well off in money, everyone isn't in the same type of houseing, isn't stockpiled with food.

No, I happen to know that evil isused as an absolute term.
Also, there can be starving people, where did I deny that?

You are thinking that through with already accepting some things as "good" and others as "evil". Could you cut that out? Please.

There are people that starve, there are people that die, there are people that don't have homes. What does that say against my point that "there are no absolute morals"?




Originally posted by Newjak
You see there are degrees in this world. One person can be more unwanted then the next person can be. Your getting cuaght up on terms and trying to prove termionology that you accept. You believe that Evil is an absolute but the fact is that anyone not evil must be bad but Evil is just another way of describing a bad person hence why it can be tossed around alot. Now yes generally Evil is used to the larger degree of bad people but to sat Evil is an absolute is simple your personal opinion and doesn't actually prove anything and the fact reamins that while your private defenintion is one thing its real world use is quite different.

I don't say that there are bad people either. How could I judge that. There might be people that I find bad, but "bad people", nah.

And, no, you are trying to go all dictionary on me, but believe me...I looked it up. Not the first time I have to educate people about it (right, Ush?). Also not the first time I will fail (right, Ush?).


Originally posted by Newjak
So yes Hitler is bad/evil to a greater degree then alot of people you yourself have admitted this.

No, I didn't.


Originally posted by Newjak
So in essence you agree with everyone here in that Hitler was not a nice person so why don't you stop trying to feed us your personal look on life

No, I don't.

The number one thing humans pursue is happiness. You kill people, you end their chance to be happy for the rest of their life. That's bad. It follows that Hitler is bad.

Originally posted by KingTut
The number one thing humans pursue is happiness. You kill people, you end their chance to be happy for the rest of their life. That's bad. It follows that Hitler is bad.

Unless it made Hitler and a lot of other people happy, thus making it good.

You could of course say that everything that makes somebody sad is evil, but that would mean that everybody that ever existed is evil, even Jesus.

Originally posted by Fishy
Unless it made Hitler and a lot of other people happy, thus making it good.

You could of course say that everything that makes somebody sad is evil, but that would mean that everybody that ever existed is evil, even Jesus.

It's all about the net amount of happiness. Hitler and those who killed with him couldn't possible have amounted the happiness that those they killed could have had for the rest of their life.

Originally posted by KingTut
It's all about the net amount of happiness. Hitler and those who killed with him couldn't possible have amounted the happiness that those they killed could have had for the rest of their life.

Sure they could have, I don't think those Jews were really happy in concentration camps anyway.

Besides like said if that's how you judge if somebody is evil or not then everybody is evil. Even the most peaceful people in history, like Ghandi and Jesus

Originally posted by Fishy
Sure they could have, I don't think those Jews were really happy in concentration camps anyway.

Besides like said if that's how you judge if somebody is evil or not then everybody is evil. Even the most peaceful people in history, like Ghandi and Jesus

On your first point, don't be rediculus, sending the Jews to the concentration campswas also bad. I guess there's really no way of being absolutely sure
that the the nazis achieved less happiness than the jews could for the rest of their life. However, the nazis only would have been happy for a few years. After 1945, being shunned for being inhumane would not have made the nazis very happy.

On your second point, Ghandi and Jesus achieved a positive net of happiness for the rest of the world, unlike Hitler's (most likely) negative net.

Originally posted by KingTut
On your second point, Ghandi and Jesus achieved a positive net of happiness for the rest of the world, unlike Hitler's (most likely) negative net.

The crusades, religious wars, inquisition and what not did not exactly make people happy. Even during Jesus his life there were a lot of people out there that weren't happy with him. Evidence for this is of course his dead and the amount of people that screamed for him to be killed instead of a well known murderer.

Ghandi kicked the English out and united a community just so it could be divided and even now India and Pakistan don't like each other. The English weren't to happy with Ghandi either.

He pissed of a lot of people.

But you are right of course if that is how you measure evil then Hitler was surely evil and Jesus and Ghandi were not. You can't really blame them for the aftermath of their well meant decisions so it's quite unfair of me to do so.

However, your definition of evil can still differ from that of a lot of other people which one's again brings us to the question of the topic. Was Hitler evil?

According to your definition definitely, according to somebody else his definition not necessarily.

The extermination of the Jews was a well-meaning action?

Originally posted by Council#13
The extermination of the Jews was a well-meaning action?

I'm sure he thought it was.

Originally posted by Fishy
I'm sure he thought it was. So what your saying here is that because Hitler didn't think it was evil then it wasn't?????

Yes, he was evil.

However, society made him evil.

Society is to blame IMO.

Originally posted by Newjak
So what your saying here is that because Hitler didn't think it was evil then it wasn't?????

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Unless you are God you don't know what is evil or not you can just form an opinion on it.

Making him evil in your opinion.

Originally posted by Fishy
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Unless you are God you don't know what is evil or not you can just form an opinion on it.

Making him evil in your opinion. Seems then nothing can be good or evil in your view which fine but I think your trying to hard to prove your point and not taking any common sense into account.

Point is Hitler took many lives in his actions and if there is one universal principle to the human race it is this death is bad. Hitler did alot of it I don't see where you can go about saying he wasn't bad unless your trying to simply prove a point that bad things do happen but evil is only an absolute extreme which once again means all you guys are trying to do is put a simple twist on words.

The fact is once you take one philosophical view like your trying to do then you can never be wrong

You can never be proven wrong because if you base it all on the idea one person's views change the entire order well then no one will ever agree universaly on any single event.

Altough you take events and time out the mix all your left with is alot of human death and since the first cavemen formed groups its been the universal notion that killing someone else without reason like defense is wrong I don't see how you can argue anyother point.

Originally posted by Newjak
Seems then nothing can be good or evil in your view which fine but I think your trying to hard to prove your point and not taking any common sense into account.

Point is Hitler took many lives in his actions and if there is one universal principle to the human race it is this death is bad. Hitler did alot of it I don't see where you can go about saying he wasn't bad unless your trying to simply prove a point that bad things do happen but evil is only an absolute extreme which once again means all you guys are trying to do is put a simple twist on words.

The fact is once you take one philosophical view like your trying to do then you can never be wrong

You can never be proven wrong because if you base it all on the idea one person's views change the entire order well then no one will ever agree universaly on any single event.

Altough you take events and time out the mix all your left with is alot of human death and since the first cavemen formed groups its been the universal notion that killing someone else without reason like defense is wrong I don't see how you can argue anyother point.

It's quite easy actually.

When Hitler killed those people he didn't consider it evil, when the popes called for crusades they didn't consider it evil. When Imams called for holy wars they didn't consider it evil, when Jean of Arc called for the French to kill the English and kick them out nobody really considered her evil, except for the church and the English...

When Bush invaded Iraq a lot of people wouldn't have called it evil and a lot would have. When Saddam was executed a lot of people cheered and a lot of people condemned it and called it bad and evil.

Simple fact is, just because we consider it to be something does not mean it is. After all it is very clear that millions of people do and did not agree with that statement.

What makes you more right then them?

In an absolute kind of way it's impossible to say if Hitler was evil or not, unless of course God exists and you are either God or personally know God and talked to God about this.

God, moral relativism is so boring, like being back in the first day of a philosophy 100 class.

Originally posted by Fishy
In an absolute kind of way it's impossible to say if Hitler was evil or not, unless of course God exists and you are either God or personally know God and talked to God about this.

Of course, God might feel he doesn't have the right to an opinion, what with Sodom and Gamorah, and whatever the other two cities were called.

Oh, and the 'Angel of Death' incident in Egypt.



Admittedly, I'm nitpicking needlessly now.....

Originally posted by Fishy
I'm sure he thought it was.

Yup, he was probably disillusioned.

Originally posted by Fishy
It's quite easy actually.

When Hitler killed those people he didn't consider it evil, when the popes called for crusades they didn't consider it evil. When Imams called for holy wars they didn't consider it evil, when Jean of Arc called for the French to kill the English and kick them out nobody really considered her evil, except for the church and the English...

When Bush invaded Iraq a lot of people wouldn't have called it evil and a lot would have. When Saddam was executed a lot of people cheered and a lot of people condemned it and called it bad and evil.

Simple fact is, just because we consider it to be something does not mean it is. After all it is very clear that millions of people do and did not agree with that statement.

What makes you more right then them?

In an absolute kind of way it's impossible to say if Hitler was evil or not, unless of course God exists and you are either God or personally know God and talked to God about this. You see your not follow ing me now. I know exactly what your trying to say and even admitted that in your context you can not be wrong.

The notion I was trying to explain is that any event and or view you place on a certain point in time can be looked at from many views yes but if you notice there is a universal law to mankind.

We do not wish to die as a species therefore killing of a sepcies memebr unless in denfese is wrong. It has been this way since the begining of humankind. Every civilization has had laws against it even ancient nomadic hunter gathers applied this rule. Now yes in certain events and times in history this rule has been broken and gray areas cast on it but if you remove the event and different points of view you realize that there is no changing what Hitler did.

Hitler without any excuse or motive of self-defense against his own life decided to use his power to take life away and in large numbers. You can't put personal perspective on that. Killing in and of itself has always been frowned upon throughout history. It is a universal law and anyone that breaks it is bad.
No view can change that

Originally posted by Newjak
You see your not follow ing me now. I know exactly what your trying to say and even admitted that in your context you can not be wrong.

The notion I was trying to explain is that any event and or view you place on a certain point in time can be looked at from many views yes but if you notice there is a universal law to mankind.

We do not wish to die as a species therefore killing of a sepcies memebr unless in denfese is wrong. It has been this way since the begining of humankind. Every civilization has had laws against it even ancient nomadic hunter gathers applied this rule. Now yes in certain events and times in history this rule has been broken and gray areas cast on it but if you remove the event and different points of view you realize that there is no changing what Hitler did.

Hitler without any excuse or motive of self-defense against his own life decided to use his power to take life away and in large numbers. You can't put personal perspective on that. Killing in and of itself has always been frowned upon throughout history. It is a universal law and anyone that breaks it is bad.
No view can change that

But Hitler could justify it, he called it saving the Germans saving the Aryan race, it helped create a better world for everybody at least that is what he believed.

It's the same reason people believed the crusades were right and many people today believe that the holy wars of Islam are right... Because they believe genuinely believe that it would have made the world a better place once those people were gone.

And who knows perhaps they would have been right... If Hitler would have won WWII we certainly wouldn't have been complaining about him being evil.

Originally posted by Fishy
But Hitler could justify it, he called it saving the Germans saving the Aryan race, it helped create a better world for everybody at least that is what he believed.

It's the same reason people believed the crusades were right and many people today believe that the holy wars of Islam are right... Because they believe genuinely believe that it would have made the world a better place once those people were gone.

And who knows perhaps they would have been right... If Hitler would have won WWII we certainly wouldn't have been complaining about him being evil. You see once again your placing relevancy on events and the time and place and completely ignoring what I'm saying

Yes you can play spin docter on any individual event in history it doesn't change the notion of death and how it is perceived by the entire species. To the entire species death is bad and the taking of a felllow species member without just cause is that one thing.

You remove the time and place and however you want to justify your personal opinion of perspective Hitler killed many people under his orders. It doesn't matter what he thought or what other people thought was happening he killed people when he himself wasn't in danger there is no excuse permitted for him.


Oh and on a completely different note if you don't think people would have still thought Hitler was evil even if he won look at Stalin. The world still sees him as one of the absolute dictators this world has seen. So winning and loosing doesn't always equate to how the world perceives you

Originally posted by Newjak
You see once again your placing relevancy on events and the time and place and completely ignoring what I'm saying

Yes you can play spin docter on any individual event in history it doesn't change the notion of death and how it is perceived by the entire species. To the entire species death is bad and the taking of a felllow species member without just cause is that one thing.

You remove the time and place and however you want to justify your personal opinion of perspective Hitler killed many people under his orders. It doesn't matter what he thought or what other people thought was happening he killed people when he himself wasn't in danger there is no excuse permitted for him.


Oh and on a completely different note if you don't think people would have still thought Hitler was evil even if he won look at Stalin. The world still sees him as one of the absolute dictators this world has seen. So winning and loosing doesn't always equate to how the world perceives you

Stalin didn't rule the world he didn't write history either especially not western history and he is still considered as one of the most popular Russian leaders ever. Second only to Lenin if that.

Now if you take away the time and the circumstances then you would have a completely different situation and Hitler would all of a sudden lose his reason for killing the Jews. You can't take away the time and reason for acts like that you have to look at the entire picture.

Originally posted by Fishy
Stalin didn't rule the world he didn't write history either especially not western history and he is still considered as one of the most popular Russian leaders ever. Second only to Lenin if that.

Now if you take away the time and the circumstances then you would have a completely different situation and Hitler would all of a sudden lose his reason for killing the Jews. You can't take away the time and reason for acts like that you have to look at the entire picture. Please he was only shown to be worhsipped through propaganda like a god ask the millions of people who he "lead" if they thought that he was a good ruler in fact didn't he have at two times in his presidency had to quell a revolt and no I'm not including the Red revolution of Lenin if you want to talk about that then it is three.

Anyways if you want to take into account opinion and circumstance then yes you can't leave out the events and the time in something but if your simply trying to look a the basics of what was happening no you don't

I mean it is simple isn't Fishy Death at it's core is the most undesired thing in a species life. It has been a major factor in every single civilization since the dawn of time. It has always been frowned upon since the very first cavemen walked the Earth. It's a natural part of us all that Death is a hated thing that we try to avoid at all cost. The only time this idea becomes grey is when people want to talk about opinions and events.

The cold hard truth is this though if you remove nationality and ethnic lines from this like I've done this is what you get. A man who for no more purpse then the desire to gain power killed many people or had many people killed. Opinion means nothing to this because if you gave this description of Hitler and leave the name out then no one would argue him being good. Time and events have a place but not when your trying to determine if someone is good or bad for you must look at what they've done instead what was going on around them.

Originally posted by Newjak
Please he was only shown to be worhsipped through propaganda like a god ask the millions of people who he "lead" if they thought that he was a good ruler in fact didn't he have at two times in his presidency had to quell a revolt and no I'm not including the Red revolution of Lenin if you want to talk about that then it is three.


Propaganda as it may have been it obviously worked. Look the revolts in his time or whatever the hell happened does not stop Russians for voting for Stalin as one of their most popular leaders in the past.



How can you look at the basis when you don't look at the circumstances? If somebody that kills another person automatically bad? If somebody who orders the death of thousands automatically evil?

In the first case imagine being attacked then it would be self defense, or imagine some random person on the street being attacked/raped/almost killed or whatever and you stop the person doing it by killing, is that evil?

In the second case imagine a thousand terrorists that are about to blow up the entire United States, would killing them be bad? Imagine an medieval army that has just taken back their homeland but does not have the food to feed the enemy survivors of the battle and can't afford to send them home because that would mean more war and more dead, is killing them evil? Or is it understandable and thus the right move for the greater good?

You have to look at the circumstances surrounding onces actions to judge him or her and under the circumstances Hitler did what he and with him many millions of others thought was best for Germany and the German people. I would not call that evil.

But obviously you do not believe in the end justifies the means and you believe in absolutes and I don't, this is not really an argument where we are going to persuade the other is it?

Originally posted by Fishy
How can you look at the basis when you don't look at the circumstances? If somebody that kills another person automatically bad? If somebody who orders the death of thousands automatically evil?

In the first case imagine being attacked then it would be self defense, or imagine some random person on the street being attacked/raped/almost killed or whatever and you stop the person doing it by killing, is that evil?

In the second case imagine a thousand terrorists that are about to blow up the entire United States, would killing them be bad? Imagine an medieval army that has just taken back their homeland but does not have the food to feed the enemy survivors of the battle and can't afford to send them home because that would mean more war and more dead, is killing them evil? Or is it understandable and thus the right move for the greater good?

You have to look at the circumstances surrounding onces actions to judge him or her and under the circumstances Hitler did what he and with him many millions of others thought was best for Germany and the German people. I would not call that evil.

But obviously you do not believe in the end justifies the means and you believe in absolutes and I don't, this is not really an argument where we are going to persuade the other is it? I already told you self defence is one thing if you are attacked or see someone else getting attacked obviously you didn't read through all of my statements before. That's just nature and fear of Death taking back into place. If someone is trying to kill you you defend yourself but if you are in no danger then no you don't.

Once again you play to much on personal opinion in matters that don't require them. Honestly personal viewpoint only counters so much. If you are trying to tell me everything is perspective your wrong honestly you just are on that point.

Because you have to add in common sense Fishy. You can come up with a million scenarios where you think your right but the TRUTH is Death is not perceptive it is absolute. In every culture on every continent ever to made Death is a frowned upon attribute and if remove ethnic lines(basically make everyone of one ethnicity and one nation) you realize that no one would be allowed to hurt another human being without just cause for defense why because universally killing is bad

I would love to see you argue this point at all and by argueing I don't mean drop me the same spew show me that Death isn't frowned upon and the taking of another life without fear of death oneself is looked at as good. Cause you can't


By the way yes I believe in absolutes I mean if Death can be absolute then why can't good evil huh but at the same time I mostly look in grey areas although I am also objective and look at person's actions and not what justification they come up with.

Oh I did and you said

"account opinion and circumstance then yes you can't leave out the events and the time in something but if your simply trying to look a the basics of what was happening no you don't "

Self defense is certainly a circumstance and is very likely an opinion as you could always call it unnecessary or excessive use of force, hell in this country half of the self defense situations are classified as such.



On ethic matters everything is perspective, if I am wrong then please enlighten me as to why, instead of saying I just am.

And unless you are God or have talked to God and asked Him the objective truth about all ethic matters saying everything ethical is objective is just the safest guess.



Human sacrifice? Gladiator fights? Euthanasia also known as MERCY killing Civil wars? All done within their own population and even with innocents and in some cultures it was considered the greatest honor to be sacrificed alive to the Gods... I'm sure they didn't consider it wrong or evil now did they? Not to mention that a great many people consider Euthanasia perfectly normal. And if you don't take in account circumstances and the time period then surely it is just murder.



I believe I just showed examples.



Is Death an ethical matter now? No, and like I said absolutes don't exist in MORALE matters.

Originally posted by BackFire
God, moral relativism is so boring, like being back in the first day of a philosophy 100 class.

Yeah, kinda like the laws of thermodynamics and Physics 100....just that a lot less nutjobs argue against it.

Originally posted by Fishy
Oh I did and you said

"account opinion and circumstance then yes you can't leave out the events and the time in something but if your simply trying to look a the basics of what was happening no you don't "

Self defense is certainly a circumstance and is very likely an opinion as you could always call it unnecessary or excessive use of force, hell in this country half of the self defense situations are classified as such.



On ethic matters everything is perspective, if I am wrong then please enlighten me as to why, instead of saying I just am.

And unless you are God or have talked to God and asked Him the objective truth about all ethic matters saying everything ethical is objective is just the safest guess.



Human sacrifice? Gladiator fights? Euthanasia also known as MERCY killing Civil wars? All done within their own population and even with innocents and in some cultures it was considered the greatest honor to be sacrificed alive to the Gods... I'm sure they didn't consider it wrong or evil now did they? Not to mention that a great many people consider Euthanasia perfectly normal. And if you don't take in account circumstances and the time period then surely it is just murder.



I believe I just showed examples.



Is Death an ethical matter now? No, and like I said absolutes don't exist in MORALE matters. Nice take one qoute but fail to read all my previous statements on the matter. I said that the act of taking another person's life where one's own isn't in jeopardy has been frowned upon throughout civilization. Self defense is a basic human instinct. When you are threatened you fight for your life heck even animals do that

All the examples you've shown once again take in mind ethnic and cultural items. Once again I am not. You can argue morals all you want once again I am appealing to the most basic nature of a human being. That is unless our life is in jeopardy we do not kill another human. It has been that way since the first cavemen joined a group.

It has been that way throughout our entire cultures. Now with your concrete examples you do realize each of the cultures you have talked about had laws about not killing eachother right I mean you do know that right?

Go into each civilization you talked about, walk up to a random person and kill them and see what happens.
Exactly you yourself would be killed for murder.

So like I said you remove ethnic and cultural conflicts you realize that the notion of taking anyother human life is at the root of every civilization on Earth. Now did that rule always get followed no but it was still there and common among all peoples of the world.

Make everyone the same without a culture and you realize that no one would be allowed to kill another human being.

Is this reality no but it is what the majority of the world want no worries of being killed. I still don't see where you can say that it isn't. Thus you remove any body who would kill many other people it would be a good thing becuase you are removing a bad person.

Now I know my idea is utopian in nature but it is still the same utopia everyone wants a world where there is no worry of car bombs stabbings and just peace. Of course except for those that would take life.

Originally posted by Newjak
Nice take one qoute but fail to read all my previous statements on the matter. I said that the act of taking another person's life where one's own isn't in jeopardy has been frowned upon throughout civilization. Self defense is a basic human instinct. When you are threatened you fight for your life heck even animals do that

No what you said is that with murder we should not take into account any time or circumstances. Self defense however can only because of the time and the circumstances thus your entire argument makes no sense. Unless you only want to do it in some cases.



The most basic nature of a human being is to survive and to take care of themselves. That is exactly what human sacrifice did that is exactly what Hitler did. At least in both cases they believed so. With Euthanasia this is not even slightly happening and yet still I would never consider it evil. And about the cavemen that is also not true, or do you honestly believed they had democratic elections back then and the smartest won the command over the group? Of course not, there was probably a lot of fighting going on between the caveman something of course considered normal back then.



Of course they did, and they still sacrificed young children to a random volcano or cheered as one person killed another. A entire culture cheered at the death of some people an entire culture cheered as young innocent girls were thrown into a freaking volcano. That's murder. And yet still not considered evil by anybody there back then.



Did I claim otherwise? That still doesn't make it evil.



Common laws also until recently included not allowing gay marriage, abortion was bad and Euthanasia should be damned. It also in most western nations included that listening to the Pope or random priests was more important then anything else. It still in many parts of the middle east means that killing somebody is perfectly normal if they disgraced your family. It's also considered completely normal by many civilizations to blame a woman if she gets raped. You would call them all right because it's popular opinion? Or would you still call them wrong?



How do you know? It is exactly our Christian culture that prevents us from killing random people. Without culture we would have been raced without morales and values and would have not had a civilization thus killing could very well have been considered normal. After all there is no culture meaning there is nothing saying that your next door neighbor is important and nothing to stop you from taking his TV and killing him in the progress. You can't take away culture.



Of course most people don't want to die, but that's irrelevant most animals don't want to die either. People who choose to die are still being killed by doctors or whatever at least if they use Euthanasia and that is certainly something I applaud and think is a good thing to be honest.

And again what if you consider the people you kill as far less then you, not worthy of breathing the very air you breath? Then you certainly wouldn't consider killing them or treating them like shit as something bad, nor would others with similar views. The majority of the world might disagree but the majority is not always right. After all the majority of Germany certainly believed that Hitler was doing the right thing during WWII and yet you are still claiming he was evil.

Now it could be argued that most of them didn't know the full extent of the things going on, but that just means they never really looked into it and just thought it was pleasant that all the Jews were suddenly gone.

Now I know my idea is utopian in nature but it is still the same utopia everyone wants a world where there is no worry of car bombs stabbings and just peace. Of course except for those that would take life.

short answer: yes.

Originally posted by Fishy
The crusades, religious wars, inquisition and what not did not exactly make people happy. Even during Jesus his life there were a lot of people out there that weren't happy with him. Evidence for this is of course his dead and the amount of people that screamed for him to be killed instead of a well known murderer.

Ghandi kicked the English out and united a community just so it could be divided and even now India and Pakistan don't like each other. The English weren't to happy with Ghandi either.

He pissed of a lot of people.

But you are right of course if that is how you measure evil then Hitler was surely evil and Jesus and Ghandi were not. You can't really blame them for the aftermath of their well meant decisions so it's quite unfair of me to do so.

However, your definition of evil can still differ from that of a lot of other people which one's again brings us to the question of the topic. Was Hitler evil?

According to your definition definitely, according to somebody else his definition not necessarily.

Is there anything you want to be more than to be happy?

Originally posted by KingTut
Is there anything you want to be more than to be happy?

No, so I think Hitler was good making himself happy by killing Jews.

Good Hitler, good.