Evil Hitler

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