Well Omega, I'll agree with you on the people who listened to him are equally as bad. But Charles Manson was also just as much at fault. He somehow brainwashed some already wacky people to do his bidding. But as I said, both parties are to blame.
And yes, our idealologies have changed over the years, but that doesn't automatically mean that our former stupidity is a valid excuse for our previous acts. The witch hunt was stupid and arguably evil. Just as the Nazi beliefs and acts are.
Back to Evil and Hitler again, eh? Things are starting to get circular.
Well, I'll just repeat what I said in other such threads then. I reject moral relativism totally and utterly, I believe morals are absolute and people can be judged by an objective standard. Hitler was absolutely evil, regardless of what he thought he was doing.
Exabyte asks:
"How can a perspective be "wrong"? For each and everything on earth, there are some people who think it's good and some who think it's evil... "
Why do moral relativists insist on thinking that this question cannot be answered and so forms a huge hole in absolutism? This is really such a simple concept that has been discussed around here before; I am amazed people still ask.
The answer is damn simple. How can it be wrong when some people think it is good and some think it is evil? Because some of them are WRONG! How much more obvious a line of thinking in the absolutist argument can that be?
Mind you, logical non sequiturs seem to be in company in exabyte's post.
"Was Hitler an evil person then?"
Yes
"The personification of evil itself?"
Huh? How would he be that?
"Certainly not - he liked children, he liked animals..."
Well, he liked SOME children; he rather despised a whole lot more. But what the heck does any of that matter? What a nice and simple world it would be if all evil people were so UTTERLY evil that every single thing they do is depraved and disgusting. Nice and easy to spot then, huh? As it is, the world doesn't quite work like that; people are not absolutes and evil is a generic term. Saying someone had their good points does not in any way rule out someone like Hitler from being declared evil.
"The problem is that he became mighty and that his conviction killed millions of people and ruined the lives of unnumbered others."
That's certainly a problem.
"But after all, it wasn't him alone who killed them, he could never have done it, nobody would remember his name, if not so many people thought what he did was "good". "
Nope, it was not him alone. There were a lot of evil people working with him as well. And yes, he would not have been able to do what he did, and would not be as famous as he was, were it not for the aid of these evil people. That they did not think what they did was evil, I don't give a tiny toss about.
"It's easy to say now "Hitler is evil""
Yup...
" - but what if there hadn't been a Hitler?"
Huh? How does that follow from the first statement?
"Then somebody else would have come and maybe have made even worse things."
Or maybe not- what the heck difference does that sentence make to the ease of saying Hitler is evil? If he had been worse, then he would have been evil to. If not worse, maybe not. Where was this meant to be leading?
Evil is a tricky judgment call to make, as the most you can normally say is that a person has done a lot of evil things, or not, or whatever, but some people are SO evil you can call them that in firm belief that it is not an inaccurate term. Hitler is one such person.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Self-defence to save yourself? Be careful about speaking in such broad terms.
What about capital punishment? Is it "justice" to kill people because some others confirmed that he did something wrong [even if he maybe hasn't]?
Ush> So do you believe we have an inherent “sense” of good and evil (in a broad sense of the words)? And that when people throughout history has committed acts of “evil”, they knew they were wrong?
I don’t adhere to moral relativism either. But to me a word such as “evil” is immensely loaded. The people who burned witches in the past may have thought they did something good – they were ridding the world of “evil.” I wouldn’t call them evil – I’d call them misguided and deluded.
BF>But the “he somehow” brainwashed sounds so odd. I’m not saying Manson wasn’t a full-blown lunatic – but was he insane OR evil? Can someone be both? Does “evil” and “good” not require that we’re RIGHT in the head before anyone can accuse of either? If I’m insane my view of the world is warped and so are my choices.
Ah, and I’m not talking about EXCUSING former horrible acts. I’m perhaps sometimes merely trying to comprehend WHY they could and did happen. I can’t believe that every single German citizen under Hitler was “evil”.
All> An evil act does not need an evil intend! I think we should discuss this. Both Ush and BF actually (I think – correct me if I’m wrong, guys) argue for this. It doesn’t matter what, say, Hitler MEANT to do, and WHY – what matters is what he did do.
A drunken driver never meant to kill a family of four. So an evil act is independent on whether or not the one doing the act takes pleasure in the act or not.
'So an evil act is independent on whether or not the one doing the act takes pleasure in the act or not.'
I take it you mean dependent. In English law, necessity is described as a lesser evil to avoid a greater one.
I think the problem with discussing abstracts is you can disagree without actually fundamentally thinking differently.
Evil is conducting yourself in an immoral way. However, certain people would disagree with this point. Take for example a criminal's way of thinking. Now they would think how they conduct themselves is not against their moral being. It might be against the norm, but not against their typical thinking patterns, thus they are not immoral. The person who does not conduct themselves as the criminal will seem it differently. He/she will see the criminal as evil; that the criminal is conducting himself immorally. Once again, the good vs evil concept comes into play. Two sides of the coin.
Victor> Nope. I meant “independent”. An evil act doesn’t depend on whether or not the one doing it takes pleasure in his/her action or not.
It’s the outcome/consequences that matters. Not the intend.
And I agree. It is indeed possible to agree on abstracts but formulating it in such ways as to appear to be disagreeing. That is why it’s important to discuss what we mean by certain concepts and how we define them.
"It doesn’t matter what, say, Hitler MEANT to do, and WHY – what matters is what he did do.
A drunken driver never meant to kill a family of four. So an evil act is independent on whether or not the one doing the act takes pleasure in the act or not."
About the first point:
Surely the fact that he had already decided that he would do what he did, is the evil part. I mean, if you WOULD save someone's life. That's the good thing. Going through with it is just carrying it out and proving it. The intentions are what are good and evil. The carrying out of such acts depends on I guess mentality. Not stability as such, just things like values. Mental unstability wouldn't really change reason for committing acts, it would just change perhaps the incentive for going through with it. Decision making and what not.
For example:
A professor at a university, very smart and as far as we can all tell, mentally stable, walks out and kills someone, it may not be for any reason other than he wanted to. Like Hannibal Lecter, I wouldn't classify him as mentally unstable. He's very mentally stable and intelligent. Yet his values are "If I wish to kill, I shall." Nothing in his mind is stopping him. He doesn't think "this is illegal, I shouldn't do this." He thinks "I shall coz I want to." He has it in his power to act out these wills and he does so.
If someone thought "I want to kill a man and torture him because that would make everyone feel horrid and I enjoy seeing them in pain" and then went and did it that would be more evil I think than someone saying "I want to kill. So I will" and just doing that.
I think the intentions are what are evil/good. Also, it depends on if you know the consequence. I believe that's why people view Hitler as evil. Coz he THOUGHT of evil acts, committed them and more to the point, knew what the consequences would be before he did it, a war.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I believe that's why people view Hitler as evil. Coz he THOUGHT of evil acts, committed them and more to the point, knew what the consequences would be before he did it, a war.
Did he now? I think you're barking up the wrong tree, AC. Hitler didn't consider his acts evil, he seriously thought he was cleansing the world of an evil race, namely the Jews. And purifying his own people to live into a new age. And historians say, the Nazi regime was the best fortified army in existence with a completely unified front, second only to the Roman Empire. Hitler brought a country back from the brink of destruction into a major power. You have to admire the man for that.
Originally posted by BackFire
Well Omega, I'll agree with you on the people who listened to him are equally as bad. But Charles Manson was also just as much at fault. He somehow brainwashed some already wacky people to do his bidding. But as I said, both parties are to blame.And yes, our idealologies have changed over the years, but that doesn't automatically mean that our former stupidity is a valid excuse for our previous acts. The witch hunt was stupid and arguably evil. Just as the Nazi beliefs and acts are.
the salem witch trials were justified the were witches
I think its a simplistic, absolutist construct that people use to reduce the cognetive burden that relativism would otherwise impose.
Quite simply IMO there is no such thing. Its a fallacy. IMO moral saints and moral devils are non existent, because all do what they deem to be correct and morally good, if we agree or not is down entirely to us, and not an property of theirs, rather, one we assign to them subjectively.
Society defines evil as that which impedes society.
Individuals define evil as that which doesnt agree with them.
I say that everyone is evil to some degree, because nobody has good motives.
Ok, Evil is inflicting suffering on any sentinent being
While, Good is reducing or eliminating suffering of any sentinent being
So called "evil", as Plato mentioned arives from the lack of education. It is also derived through malnourished thinking. This is where environmental role plays. It also depends on what the person believes is right and sincerely believe what they are doing somehow benefits the world or a certain someone, group, etc