Was Hitler...EVIL?

Started by ~Flamboyant~28 pages

Originally posted by Rapscallion
dude, not exactly the stuff you want to rattle around. yeah your entitled to your opinion, but when your opinion is as hateful and bigoted as supporting social darwinism (genocide as most affecionately call it), as you are strangely proud to admit, then you probably deserve a tiny bit of biased irrational opposition (as i tend to give) seeing as it tends to include the submission of minorities and has resulted in such events as the appartheid, segregation of african americans in the U.S., genocide in Rowanda, extermination of native americans, human "cleansing" in the ormerly called Zair, and everybody's favorite: the holocaust
No but see, in your opinion his opinion is bigoted and hateful. But in HIS opinion, his opinion is not bigoted and hateful.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Noooo, you want a real, manly moustache, the kind of thing that strike fear into the masses. You want a... Stalin 'tache.
I'll make a hybrid. fear

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
No but see, in your opinion his opinion is bigoted and hateful. But in HIS opinion, his opinion is not bigoted and hateful.

I don't support Social Darwinism, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate.

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Not Really.

Clever retort, next time maybe say something with a little substance or relevance.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Whether evil is a social construct, or a true existance, by definition, Hitler is infact evil.

👆

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
👆
Depends on who does the defining.

By either one of those, the man was evil.

Trivia: "Crazy White Man" was the Navajo Code word for Hitler. Just thought I'd share that.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
[B]By either one of those, the man was evil./B]
Depends on who does the defining.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Depends on who does the defining.

No it doesn't. Find any definition or connotation of "evil" and Hitler very much applies to it.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No it doesn't. Find any definition or connotation of "evil" and Hitler very much applies to it.
Depends on who did the defining.

We should remember that any act is morally justifiable, it depends on your morals!

Originally posted by Penelope
So if i call myself "evil" i am legitimitly evil. hitler

😂

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
People often describe Hitler as a monster, or as evil, when Der Untergang came out alot of German Reporters asked if it was right for Hitler to be portrayed so humanly.

But, Hitler was a devout supporter of the Survival of the Fittest theory, he believed that the strong had to survive and to do this it involved destroying the weak, and so, the concentration camps where set up and millions where gassed and killed...but

Is the extreme take on, what is effectively Darwinism, actually evil?

To say that Hitler was evil would suggest that he was devoid of Human emotion and soul...but, it is clear if you read the reports of those who knew him that this wasn't the case.

In fact, he did do what HE felt was best for humanity...so he wasn't acting out of malice but HE thought he was doing what was right.

Although he may have been wrong and his beliefs on what is right and wrong where extremely warped, does that actually make him evil?

Well, I learned that the Nazi's were just like normal people and treat their 'jobs' like we treat our jobs. Imagine, we might see AC throwing BlackSunshine's baby against a wall. Sick, but interestingly weird

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
We should remember that any act is morally justifiable, it depends on your morals!

That is categorically untrue, as is the comment by someone else that because Hitler didn't think what he was doing was evil, it wasn't evil.

On this line of thought, NOTHING would be evil or immoral:

- Mass Genocide, such as by Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or more recently in the Balkans, because there are reasons of 'cleansing' a region of ethnicity, or protecting a power base.

- Serial Killers, as they have a variety of twisted reasons for what they have done.

- Paedophilia, because 'they like it'.

Doing something because you think it's OK to do it does not make it moral - doing something that is within popular moral boundaries makes it moral; following the accepted moral code makes something or someone moral. Doing things outside of these boundaries makes it immoral.

Of course, morals DO change and vary with place and time. Feeding Christians to the Lions in Roman times was seen as fine 2000 years ago; today it is very much seen as immoral. Trading slaves centuries ago was not seen as immoral - today it very much is. Even in modern times, there are tribes in Africa and elsewhere that practise female circumcision, when it is generally accepted in the rest of the world that this is immoral.

So, what makes our moral code 'better' than those people's? Some of you will say "nothing - we have no right to judge." You people are wrong. Why? Because anything that causes pain and suffering unnecessarily to innocent people IS immoral and thus in extreme cases evil. We have learnt that through making mistakes in the past, through progress and enlightenment. If everyone followed the widely accepted Judo-Christian-Islamic moral code of pacifism, non-violence and tolerance, the world would be a better place. If on the other hand we indulged in slavery, genocide and mass rape, the world would be a horrible place. Go figure. (and yes I know religions haven't always followed their own rules - ie the Crusades - but that doesn't make their basic message wrong)

So any claim that Hitler or anyone else who does similar things is or was not evil is utter madness. The people who flew the planes on 9/11 or blew up the trains on 7/7 WERE evil because they killed many many INNOCENT people. The vast majority of the muslim world viewed those acts as evil. Furthermore, BY THE ACCEPTABLE MORALS OF THE TIME, Hitler's acts were considered evil, even by the vast majority of Germans, and are considered even more so today, because we as a society have progressed and learnt since then.

Originally posted by Mithlond
That is categorically untrue, as is the comment by someone else that because Hitler didn't think what he was doing was evil, it wasn't evil.
Who dictates what is truth in philosophy?
Originally posted by Mithlond
On this line of thought, NOTHING would be evil or immoral:
That which displeases us we deem immoral and evil.
Originally posted by Mithlond
- Mass Genocide, such as by Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or more recently in the Balkans, because there are reasons of 'cleansing' a region of ethnicity, or protecting a power base.

- Serial Killers, as they have a variety of twisted reasons for what they have done.

- Paedophilia, because 'they like it'.

Evil to you. Evil to me. But the concept of evil is still wholly dependent upon who is defining what constitutes it.
Originally posted by Mithlond
Doing something because you think it's OK to do it does not make it moral - doing something that is within popular moral boundaries makes it moral;
The popular moral boundaries according to whom?
Originally posted by Mithlond
ollowing the accepted moral code makes something or someone moral.
Accepted by whom?
Originally posted by Mithlond
Doing things outside of these boundaries makes it immoral.
Boundaries defined by whom?
Originally posted by Mithlond
Of course, morals DO change and vary with place and time. Feeding Christians to the Lions in Roman times was seen as fine 2000 years ago; today it is very much seen as immoral. Trading slaves centuries ago was not seen as immoral - today it very much is.
Depends on which Christians, I probably wouldn't mind to much if it was the crazy lady that FOX loves to show.
Originally posted by Mithlond
Even in modern times, there are tribes in Africa and elsewhere that practise female circumcision, when it is generally accepted in the rest of the world that this is immoral.
Not to those who enforce it's practice.
Originally posted by Mithlond
So, what makes our moral code 'better' than those people's? Some of you will say "nothing - we have no right to judge." You people are wrong. Why? Because anything that causes pain and suffering unnecessarily to innocent people IS immoral and thus in extreme cases evil.
To you.
Originally posted by Mithlond
We have learnt that through making mistakes in the past, through progress and enlightenment.
The enlightened would realise a lack of moral authority.
Originally posted by Mithlond
If everyone followed the widely accepted Judo-Christian-Islamic moral code of pacifism, non-violence and tolerance, the world would be a better place.
😆
Originally posted by Mithlond
If on the other hand we indulged in slavery, genocide and mass rape, the world would be a horrible place.
Probably not for those doing the raping and killing, but
Originally posted by Mithlond
Go figure. (and yes I know religions haven't always followed their own rules - ie the Crusades - but that doesn't make their basic message wrong)
Women are subordinates? People who are different are bad?
Originally posted by Mithlond
So any claim that Hitler or anyone else who does similar things is or was not evil is utter madness.
Any claim to a transcendent moral authority is utter madness. I can believe Hitler evil - it has no impact on what Hitler is. Belief does not dictate reality.
Originally posted by Mithlond
The people who flew the planes on 9/11 or blew up the trains on 7/7 WERE evil because they killed many many INNOCENT people. The vast majority of the muslim world viewed those acts as evil. Furthermore, BY THE ACCEPTABLE MORALS OF THE TIME, Hitler's acts were considered evil, even by the vast majority of Germans, and are considered even more so today, because we as a society have progressed and learnt since then.
Two of the greatest acts of terrorism in terms of sheer magnitude - if one takes by definition terrorism to mean the targeting of noncombatants for political purposes - are the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The vast majority of the Western World lives under the delusion that this act was a necessity and for the greater good in order to bring WWII to an end, in order to bring the act within "acceptable morals" of the time and of todays.

The majority of people believe Hitler was evil, therefore Hitler was evil.

Argumentum ad populum.

"The popular moral boundaries according to whom?"

The general 'populace' - hence the term 'popular'

"Even in modern times, there are tribes in Africa and elsewhere that practise female circumcision, when it is generally accepted in the rest of the world that this is immoral.
Not to those who enforce it's practice."

Exactly - hence 'generally accepted in the rest of the world" I don't think the general consensus in the world today would argue with it. Of course, there are always exceptions to every rule.

"Women are subordinates? People who are different are bad?"

Don't remember that in Jesus's sermon on the mount... Unfortunately, organised religions have been used by people with political purposes to achieve their ends...

"Any claim to a transcendent moral authority is utter madness. I can believe Hitler evil - it has no impact on what Hitler is. Belief does not dictate reality."

The only transcendent moral authority is the opinions of the vast majority of people living in a said society at a said time. That is all 'morals' are, hence the fact that opinions are changing towards homosexuality for example where it is not blanket 'immoral' as it once was, and as a society it is not deemed as 'immoral', no matter what individual opinions on it might be.

As for reality/belief, is it not the case that someone's belief defines their reality?

"Two of the greatest acts of terrorism in terms of sheer magnitude - if one takes by definition terrorism to mean the targeting of noncombatants for political purposes - are the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The vast majority of the Western World lives under the delusion that this act was a necessity and for the greater good in order to bring WWII to an end, in order to bring the act within "acceptable morals" of the time and of todays."

War is terror. Thus any form of war or act of war is evil. A notable postscript to the atomic bombings was that prior to 'the bomb' both sides were flattening cities - ie carpet bombing - with thousands of bombs. What the scientists believed 'the bomb' to do was simply to replace those thousands with one single bomb. What separated 'the bomb' from convential bombs, other than strength, were the side effects that the scientists only found out about afterwards - radiation sickness, black rain, people with clothes burned to their skin - and it's almost these side effects of the explosion that make 'the bomb' so terrible. I think once people realised what the bombs could really do, they realised the true evil of them, hence they have never been used since, and hence people have been regretting the dropping of them ever since.

"The majority of people believe Hitler was evil, therefore Hitler was evil.
Argumentum ad populum."

Exactly. That, my friend, is this whole thread summed up in a sentence.

brain had to have a few neurotransmitters wildly misfiring

spirit and outlook on life were further corrupted by upbringing and external influences

Negative belief in his capacity to forge a wholesome sparky non-violent future with freehold + 2.5 kids

Negative Love for humanity [Aryns don't count as he played that platform to power]

Pure Evil.

Originally posted by Mithlond
The only transcendent moral authority is the opinions of the vast majority of people living in a said society at a said time. That is all 'morals' are, hence the fact that opinions are changing towards homosexuality for example where it is not blanket 'immoral' as it once was, and as a society it is not deemed as 'immoral', no matter what individual opinions on it might be.
Popular morals are not a transcendent moral authority; they are wholly subjectively dependent upon the individuals. Many individual's subjective moralities combined are still individual's subjective moralities.
Originally posted by Mithlond
As for reality/belief, is it not the case that someone's belief defines their reality?
Their reality. Not Reality.
Originally posted by Mithlond
War is terror. Thus any form of war or act of war is evil. A notable postscript to the atomic bombings was that prior to 'the bomb' both sides were flattening cities - ie carpet bombing - with thousands of bombs. What the scientists believed 'the bomb' to do was simply to replace those thousands with one single bomb. What separated 'the bomb' from convential bombs, other than strength, were the side effects that the scientists only found out about afterwards - radiation sickness, black rain, people with clothes burned to their skin - and it's almost these side effects of the explosion that make 'the bomb' so terrible. I think once people realised what the bombs could really do, they realised the true evil of them, hence they have never been used since, and hence people have been regretting the dropping of them ever since.
I can't be bothered getting into Hiroshima in yet another thread.
Originally posted by Mithlond
Exactly. That, my friend, is this whole thread summed up in a sentence.
I take it you don't realise argumentum ad populum is a logically fallacious argument.

moral relativism, scary

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Popular morals are not a transcendent moral authority; they are wholly subjectively dependent upon the individuals. Many individual's subjective moralities combined are still individual's subjective moralities.
Their reality. Not Reality.
I can't be bothered getting into Hiroshima in yet another thread.
I take it you don't realise argumentum ad populum is a logically fallacious argument.

No, I didn't. My stupid.

That besides, it is true there is NO transcendent moral authority. The nearest thing we have is a)God, if you believe in it, or b)the popular concept of morality, subjective or not. Morals, Laws, Opinions, good, evil, etc are all man made philosophical concepts, and are thus 'subjective'. We cannot debate this whole thread without that understanding. My argument was that morals and thus 'evil' are decided by popular opinion. Without popular opinion there is no concept of 'good' and 'evil'. And because the vast majority of humans say Hitler was evil, he was.

There is also no one 'Reality'. Your reality is different from mine. My reality is one where Hitler was an evil man who killed millions of people and where something is 'evil' if it involves hurting or killing people.

And if you can't be bothered talking about Hiroshima, don't bring it up.

Goodnight Vienna

If you want to read arguments about the necessity and motives of the bombing of Hiroshima then wade through the Israel Lebanon thread or search Remembering Hiroshima.

That was my point there is no transcendent moral authority. My believing Hitler to be an evil madman does not make him so. Hitler was. Period. My assigning the condition of being evil to him doesn't impact anything he did, and doesn't affect who and what he was to anyone but me. To Hitler, his actions likely weren't evil, to Ava Braun they likely weren't, to the Nazi followers they likely weren't. While I can say I believe Hitler was evil, I cannot technically conclusively and truthfully say Hitler was evil, as I'm no transcendent moral authority.

Hitler was evil, to me. We deem evil, what displeases us.