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.
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?
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.
"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.
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. [/QUOTE]
KMC Community Forums
Jan 16th, 2007 08:09 PM
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 
