Was Hitler Evil?

Originally posted by Mindship
"Well then you get into the question of whether pain is really bad. Which leads to the question of what bad is exactly."

In Behavior Modification, pain has been shown to be "aversive," ie, if it's a consequence of a given behavior, that behavior will measurably decrease in frequency to avoid that consequence. What's "bad" is often a judgment call beforehand, whereas "aversive" is called such after it causes actual change in behavior.

But the bad judgement is the meaningful one in this case. Would you want to not have pain at all? Obviously not. There are practical reasons for having pain, escaping an aversive stimulus is much better than being killed.

"But the bad judgement is the meaningful one in this case. Would you want to not have pain at all? Obviously not. There are practical reasons for having pain, escaping an aversive stimulus is much better than being killed."

(Sorry for the makeshift quoting, but the computer I am using right now: not all KMC functions -- like "Quote" -- show up).

Indeed, pain serves a valuable, natural function. I was making a general distinction though regarding "bad," since Omega Vision's comment struck me as a general statement. Basically, a strict behaviorist would say how do you know something's "bad" w/o first seeing what effect it has on behavior.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But the bad judgement is the meaningful one in this case. Would you want to not have pain at all? Obviously not. There are practical reasons for having pain, escaping an aversive stimulus is much better than being killed.

but the value of pain is that it is aversive; there is a value to us, as organisms, being able to tell when something is dangerous or negative to our existence.

The ability to perceive pain is certainly not a justification for causing it.

It seems in any linguistic system that recognizes actual definitions of words, pain is almost tautological with "bad" in a biological sense, though things like masochism might challenge it as an absolute in cognitive terms.

Originally posted by alltoomany
yes! D-IX was used on his army to control them too

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
No, you're thinking of the Piece of Eden.

methamphetamine

Is that what the Templars call them?

If Hitler believed that he was destroying evil people and helping people who are good, does this disqualify him from being evil if his intentions were good?

Yes he was evil. As are all human beings in their core. That being said he himself did not think or feel he was. Jews would think otherwise.

Originally posted by Irrylath23
As are all human beings in their core. .

It's so dark and deep, maaaan.

The answer to OP question is obvious: Judging by his deeds, yes, Hitler was extremely evil, and in general, the terrors comited by Nazi Germany.

However, the whole debate just shows how morality, if taken to be subjective, can be twisted and turned ad infinitum.
It also shows that the view of subjective moral values is impotent and inadequate, for it is contrary to both experiences and reason. Some things are objectively evil or good. Thus, Nietzsche was both right and wrong 🙂

Originally posted by axel_jovan
Some things are objectively evil or good. Thus, Nietzsche was both right and wrong 🙂

so long as one assumes that the suffering imposed on people is a reasonable metric for judging moral behaviour. There is no absolute metric, and no objective one unless we, subjectively as individuals, determine there is one. So, if we a priori say that inflicting human suffering is immoral, we can say people who do are immoral, and it would be objective, however, the metric of harm as the determinant of morality is not objective.

I tend to agree with your position more generally about morals not being entirely subjective, but to criticize Nietzsche, this is a very important distinction. He talked at length about how various metrics for defining morals had been invented through human history to subjugate the wills of the individually powerful to those of the greater population. It was not that he was saying morality within those systems was subjective (though it often is), but rather that the whole concept of what we define as right or wrong is based on socially constructed principles, mainly to prevent the individually powerful from abusing those who are not.

Originally posted by axel_jovan

It also shows that the view of subjective moral values is impotent and inadequate, for it is contrary to both experiences and reason. Some things are objectively evil or good.

Hitler has a 94% evil rating on the Evil Scale. /fact

he was also 50% man on the Testicle Scale.

96% on the mustache scale though

credit where it is due

No love for his hair, I see. You guys just don't appreciate the craftsmanship that went in to that 'do.

yeah, way of ahead of his time too

What kind of stupid question is this? I am convinced that he was demon possessed.

/facepalm

there is something worse than pop psych