Evil Hitler

Rickie wrote: This is a spin off another discussion. I didn't want to introduce a distraction or tangent to the other thread.

I think I can say Hitler was evil and the leaders of the Nazi Party. It seems anyone that embraces the Nazi Party must not think of Hitler as evil? What am I missing here?

I think it really depends what you mean by 'anyone that embraces the Nazi Party'. Most Germans at the time embraced it, but I wouldn't view most Germans at that time as being evil.

Also, I think it matters to what degree they 'embrace' it? Prior to seizing power, going to war, and systematically exterminating millions of his own people, Hitler actually did a lot of good things.

Much of the world wanted him to succeed. He completely resurrected the German economy, he improved infrastructure, improved social mobility, played a part in creating the VolksWagen car and encouraged every family to own a car. So in THAT way, I can KIND OF see an argument in favour of certain ASPECTS of Nationalist-Socialist politics.

But generally speaking: yes Hitler was evil, yes the Nazis were evil, and yes anyone embracing Nazism is evil

It's extremely easy to throw out extreme examples in order to debate or contradict what someone says without actually stopping to think about their point. I in no way think Arisaig "needs" to be defended. I don't expect sugar coating. I want us all to consider what is said before we argue and try to use logic and understanding. This isn't moderation, it's me saying "Dudes, are we really using flat earthers to argue in a morals debate?"

On a personal note...it's hard to talk on the forums when everyone reads you in your grown up voice.

MadHatter wrote:

Arisaig wrote:

EDIT: I'm not saying I condone these wrongdoings, im making a valid argument. Life is sacred, and I'd do anything to stop these acts.

By what right would you stop them? If you think that their morality is on the up and up by what right do you try to get involved? You have already said one man trying to stop the majority is to be ignored.
Further, how is it not condoning an act to call it moral?
To help your answer this is the actual definition of the word here.

Honestly, I don't have the moral right. I would if I could though, to protect those persecuted and harmed for their views. All life is equal, and given the power to stop it (be it morally right to or not), I would in a heartbeat... but unfortunately I cannot. I'd rather be deemed evil by the world and stop needless death than be good and let people die.

JLSpinner wrote: It's

On a personal note...it's hard to talk on the forums when everyone reads you in your grown up voice.

Tone is hard to read and I feel the same way sometimes. Sorry for doing to you what frustrates me when talking myself.

Arisaig wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Arisaig wrote:

EDIT: I'm not saying I condone these wrongdoings, im making a valid argument. Life is sacred, and I'd do anything to stop these acts.

By what right would you stop them? If you think that their morality is on the up and up by what right do you try to get involved? You have already said one man trying to stop the majority is to be ignored.
Further, how is it not condoning an act to call it moral?
To help your answer this is the actual definition of the word here.

Honestly, I don't have the moral right. I would if I could though, to protect those persecuted and harmed for their views. All life is equal, and given the power to stop it (be it morally right to or not), I would in a heartbeat... but unfortunately I cannot. I'd rather be deemed evil by the world and stop needless death than be good and let people die.

But morality is concerning oneself with what is good or bad, so if you have no moral right ie what you are doing is not acting on the assumption that your actions are good or what you are trying to stop is bad what other right do you have to act? You have no legal right to act in this case. So without a moral imperative then why do you act and how do you call these people good when the morals of the day say they are not?

It also appears you missed my second question how do you not condone something when calling it moral. When someone says something is moral they are generally saying its right or just. So if you say yes this is moral that would be condoning it by common usage of the word.

Don't mix morals and ethics. Morals are personal while ethics are typically judged as a socially acceptable view or act.

JLSpinner wrote: Don't mix morals and ethics. Morals are personal while ethics are typically judged as a socially acceptable view or act.

But according to here , here , and here there is no requirement for it to be personal. It only has to concern what is right or wrong. It does not need to be personal. Whereas this , this and this shows that ethics tend to lend itself to group OR personal codes of right and wrong.

MadHatter wrote:

JLSpinner wrote: Don't mix morals and ethics. Morals are personal while ethics are typically judged as a socially acceptable view or act.

But according to here , here , and here there is no requirement for it to be personal. It only has to concern what is right or wrong. It does not need to be personal. Whereas this , this and this shows that ethics tend to lend itself to group OR personal codes of right and wrong.

True, and I can link you to definitions that use the right phrasing to make it personal. Semantics. When we discuss morals the one who makes the judgement is you. You decide if it is right or wrong. I have much respect for you and doubt you base your judgement of right and wrong on anything other than YOUR own reasoning. Of course we are influenced, but we make the call

JLSpinner wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

JLSpinner wrote: Don't mix morals and ethics. Morals are personal while ethics are typically judged as a socially acceptable view or act.

But according to here , here , and here there is no requirement for it to be personal. It only has to concern what is right or wrong. It does not need to be personal. Whereas this , this and this shows that ethics tend to lend itself to group OR personal codes of right and wrong.

True, and I can link you to definitions that use the right phrasing to make it personal. Semantics. When we discuss morals the one who makes the judgement is you. You decide if it is right or wrong. I have much respect for you and doubt you base your judgement of right and wrong on anything other than YOUR own reasoning. Of course we are influenced, but we make the call

Well we do have to have a base definition to work from if we are going to discuss a words meaning or even understand what the other person means when they use a word. A is A for both of us or it ceases to mean A for one of us and we are no longer talking about the same thing. Or to put it more simply if I call a table a chair and keep arguing that what you are pointing at is a chair we are both going to get confused if we do not agree on a definition. That is why dictionaries exist and are a good place to work from especially the more renowned or trusted ones like I linked.

You are right that we all operate from our own sense of right and wrong. However, for an action to become the norm in a place MOST people must agree with it or not think it bad enough to stand against. Hence group morals or ethics. And so if we call an act moral we are condoning or agreeing with it. Heck I would put forward that if you do not take steps to stop an act you are aware of that you condone the act by your own inaction.

Not necessarily most people have to agree. Those with the power and influence need to agree. And sometimes inaction isn't due to unwillingness but the lack of possibility or opportunity.

JLSpinner wrote: Not necessarily most people have to agree. Those with the power and influence need to agree. And sometimes inaction isn't due to unwillingness but the lack of possibility or opportunity.

I dont care how much those that hold power support something they cant do it if they do not have bulk support. That is how revolutions happen. We have seen it time and again in human history where a dictator holds a lot of power and most of the guns but is still fought against if they go too far.

Also there is always a way to act in opposition to something. Be it call the police, support the resistance, hide the victims etc. Or at least in my eyes. If you actually believe its wrong there is always a way to stand against it. That way might bring risk but it exists.

MadHatter wrote:

JLSpinner wrote: Not necessarily most people have to agree. Those with the power and influence need to agree. And sometimes inaction isn't due to unwillingness but the lack of possibility or opportunity.

I dont care how much those that hold power support something they cant do it if they do not have bulk support. That is how revolutions happen. We have seen it time and again in human history where a dictator holds a lot of power and most of the guns but is still fought against if they go too far.

Also there is always a way to act in opposition to something. Be it call the police, support the resistance, hide the victims etc. Or at least in my eyes. If you actually believe its wrong there is always a way to stand against it. That way might bring risk but it exists.

First about the bulk support. Look at the latest decision of tax reform and net neutrality. Neither shows bulk support in national polls. Yet, they are occurring.
Secondly, be mindful of absolutes. Not every situation will have a clear way to resolve it. There are no win scenarios. The Bushido code calls for courage but not dumb courage. We must recognize that sometimes the consequences aren't worth the act.

JLSpinner wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

JLSpinner wrote: Not necessarily most people have to agree. Those with the power and influence need to agree. And sometimes inaction isn't due to unwillingness but the lack of possibility or opportunity.

I dont care how much those that hold power support something they cant do it if they do not have bulk support. That is how revolutions happen. We have seen it time and again in human history where a dictator holds a lot of power and most of the guns but is still fought against if they go too far.

Also there is always a way to act in opposition to something. Be it call the police, support the resistance, hide the victims etc. Or at least in my eyes. If you actually believe its wrong there is always a way to stand against it. That way might bring risk but it exists.

First about the bulk support. Look at the latest decision of tax reform and net neutrality. Neither shows bulk support in national polls. Yet, they are occurring.
Secondly, be mindful of absolutes. Not every situation will have a clear way to resolve it. There are no win scenarios. The Bushido code calls for courage but not dumb courage. We must recognize that sometimes the consequences aren't worth the act.

Ok I should have been more clear I was speaking in terms of ethical/moral acts. If an act is ethically or morally outrageous it will cause a storm no matter how the powers that be support it. Thanks for the correction, its easy to lock into thinking in one fashion based on the thread topic and previous tone of the thread.

Further yes you might not win but you still stand against it. If standing for something is not worth the results then you must not be that morally against the act. I mean plenty of soldiers stand and die because they are doing whats right over what is smart. In fact sometimes it requires that stand and sacrifice to light the fire. If we look at the society that spawned the bushido code we can see plenty of death over what is honorable ( or moral ) vs what would be considered smart.

Sure but do fire fighters condone the death of innocent people when a building is declared unsafe and no one enters to save the remaining inhabitants?

JLSpinner wrote: Sure but do fire fighters condone the death of innocent people when a building is declared unsafe and no one enters to save the remaining inhabitants?

Well, that is not an act. That is an event. An act requires an actor and in the case that we are talking about someone that is acted upon negatively. In the case of a fire and not running in we are not condoning the death as the death and fire are not an act being performed by someone. Now if we saw the arsonist and failed to stop them or report them then we are by inaction condoning/allowing the act.

BTW on a side note, I love these debates or talks no matter how bogged in semantics they might seem. Because it's in these nitty-gritty details that I find the bits that help refine my path and understanding of things.

So condoning through inaction only applies to the act of people or persons?

JLSpinner wrote: So condoning through inaction only applies to the act of people or persons?

Yes one has no say in or way to actually stop acts of nature or events already in progress that are not being perpetrated by a person. Thus one really in my eyes anyway cannot condone it as there is no person involved to stop or support.

So for example, if you see someone being mugged but do not at least call the cops or find someone that can, you might as well be aiding the mugger in my eyes. Now there are rare and extreme circumstances. Such as being 300 miles from cell reception with no sat phone when you see the mugging. But even then you have ought to render aid to the victim and report what you saw as soon as you have the ability to do so.

But if you saw a person flowing down river in raging waters and you cant swim well there is no condoning or not condoning that event. However, if you say saw the person jump in or be pushed in and you did not make effort to render aid then you are indeed condoning that act.

There will always be outlying circumstances and I don't really want want to lay down some unrealistically extreme circumstances. I can respect your opinion on this one. Although I would be mindful to say someone condones the act. Fear is a powerful motivator and social experiments have shown that when facing great odds of receiving physical harm most people chose not to get involved. The police might be corrupt or the enemy forces too great.

JLSpinner wrote: There will always be outlying circumstances and I don't really want want to lay down some unrealistically extreme circumstances. I can respect your opinion on this one. Although I would be mindful to say someone condones the act. Fear is a powerful motivator and social experiments have shown that when facing great odds of receiving physical harm most people chose not to get involved. The police might be corrupt or the enemy forces too great.

We can have all sorts of factors that push us to condone or not condone something. Fear can be a big one. But it does not change that you could act and you choose not to. I know the impact of fear and overwhelming force all too well from my abuse as a child. And maybe my standing up in the face of those events gives me unrealistic expectations of others. Often I get told that not everyone can act as I do and risk their behind even if you will get hurt in the process. Maybe those people are right and I am unrealistic or at least unfair.

Anyway, I gotta get to sleep. Work in the morning. I'll continue this tomorrow. Good night Dan.

Arisaig wrote: History is written by the victors. Yes, we view his actions as evil, but if h had won, he'd be a hero. It only makes sense that those that idolise his ideology to refuse to see him as evil, because no one follows what they think is evil. Everyone is the good guy of their own story, and its hard to be a good guy if you do what you view as evil.

A good guy perhaps in their eyes perhaps, but still evil... if they were honest. I try not to confuse good and bad with compassion and evil - and so for me Hitler's regime was objectifiably evil - there is nothing subjective about that (if you believe history).

In contrast, atomic destruction of Japanese cities was probably more illegal then evil IMO........ but they'd have argued it was necessary to save lives, proportional to the expected land campaign, and distinguished as vital supply targets - I'd argue it was not appropriately distinguished from civilians to be lawful. Those are the measues of legal warfighting; proportional action to threat, necessary to undertake, and distinguished from non-combatants. Which is what sort of defines the good guys from the bad guys in real terms, as at is tries to exert a relevant objective frame of reference over decision making based on the likely outcomes of actions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war