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 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
Dictatorthe 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 Bardock42Three good points? Madman, Dictator and Mass-Murderer are hardly positives... 🙄
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 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 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 CoalYou 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.
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.
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 FishyYou 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 😉
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
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 UshgarakStill a bunch of bullshit.
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.
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.
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.