Hitler

Explain.

0 Replies

Re: Hitler

minipb wrote:

He wasn't such a bad guy.

He wasn't a bad guy at all.

He was a bad guy. However, to say that it was his fault would be wrong, since human beings are shaped by their genes and the environment (none of which one can control).

minipb wrote:

He only needs to say his opinion, and other people did bad things.

He hated different kinds of people, and his subordinates noticed that and killed those people without his approval first? Is that what you mean?
If so, that's not correct since he had control over everyone and ordered war battles and executions (the ones that he wasn't involved in directly were implicitly "pre-approved" by him).

0 Replies

Re: Hitler

c_logic wrote:

minipb wrote:
He wasn't such a bad guy.

He wasn't a bad guy at all.

He was a bad guy. However, to say that it was his fault would be wrong, since human beings are shaped by their genes and the environment (none of which one can control).

I don't understand how someone can be "bad" and yet not be at fault for what he does. Our conception of what constitutes a "bad" person implicitly relies upon a notion that the person is responsible for his "badness," and thus bears the fault for his deeds. If, therefore, a person kills millions of people through no fault of his own, on what basis can we judge him to be "bad?"

0 Replies

Re: Hitler
joefromchicago,
Bad for the non-Nazi people - in regard to physical and mental harm, not bad in absolute terms since there is no such thing.
When I said bad, I stated that from my point of view/angle, and the majority of people on earth.
If you were to ask Neo-nazis about Hitler, they'd probably say he was an angel.

joefromchicago wrote:

I don't understand how someone can be "bad" and yet not be at fault for what he does. Our conception of what constitutes a "bad" person implicitly relies upon a notion that the person is responsible for his "badness," and thus bears the fault for his deeds. If, therefore, a person kills millions of people through no fault of his own, on what basis can we judge him to be "bad?"

We can, and we do it all the time... from a subjective perspective. If this person did harm to lots of people, and most people hate to see other people suffer (due to empathy), it's perfectly reasonable to say that this person is "bad" or "damaging", which does not constitute an absolute/universal "bad" or "evil".

0 Replies

There is always the consideration of the good things that came of Hitler's brutal rule. During this brief period great advances were made in medical science since the nazis had no reservations against experimenting on people.
Some of these nazi doctors contributed to science, and their contributions have not gone unnoticed by better men.
Maybe it is paradoxical that such cruety should yield any benefits.
Anyway, I guess I am saying that regardless of Hitler's quality as a man there are some things he left behind that we'd have to say is to the good. It may be dwarfed by the horrors we remember, but it is still there.

0 Replies

Re: Hitler

c_logic wrote:

joefromchicago,
Bad for the non-Nazi people - in regard to physical and mental harm, not bad in absolute terms since there is no such thing.

How do you know there is no such thing as "bad" in absolute terms?

c_logic wrote:

We can, and we do it all the time... from a subjective perspective.

That may be true, but why should you care?

c_logic wrote:

If this person did harm to lots of people, and most people hate to see other people suffer (due to empathy), it's perfectly reasonable to say that this person is "bad" or "damaging", which does not constitute an absolute/universal "bad" or "evil".

No, it's not perfectly reasonable at all. If all judgments of "bad" or "good" are merely descriptions of personal feelings, such that the statement "Hitler is bad" is equivalent to the statement "Hitler makes me feel bad," then anyone who asserts the statement "Hitler is bad" as an absolute judgment is making a false claim.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

There is always the consideration of the good things that came of Hitler's brutal rule. During this brief period great advances were made in medical science since the nazis had no reservations against experimenting on people.

Nazi researchers made absolutely no advances in medical sciences. Their experiments were totally bereft of scientific merit or value.

The experts agree that the Nazi experiments lacked scientific integrity. The Nazis even perverted scientific terminology. Their experimental "control subjects" suffered the most and died. "Sample size" meant truck loads of Jews. "Significance" was an indication of misery, and "response rate" was a measure of torment. Behind the niceties of their learned discourse were the horrors of Nazi torture. Some have suggested against terming them "experiments," since they were really brutal beatings and mugging.Source

0 Replies

That may be so. But there are other things. Small things compared to the 'bad' things.

I will not go into it, partly because I can't recall so many facts, and partly because my interest in advocating Hitler's good side isn't all that great.

0 Replies

Re: Hitler

minipb wrote:

He wasn't such a bad guy.

He wasn't a bad guy at all.

He only needs to say his opinion, and other people did bad things.

What's an opinion? Is an opinion wrong?

Some opinions, such as "apple pie tastes better than pumpkin pie," cannot be "wrong" because they are simply a statement of personal preference. Opinions that are presented as a statement about objective truth can indeed be wrong.

If you said, "In Hitler's opinion, he was not a bad guy," it may be true that he believed that (I have no idea what he really thought). But Hitler was a bad guy. He may have rationalized what he did, but it was still undeniably wrong to hurt so many innocent people.

Opinions are not facts, they are subjective interpretations of reality. They can be wrong if they are based on faulty evidence or emotion instead of logic, influenced by personal biases (such as religious beliefs), or warped by mental illness.

Even if Hitler thought he was a "good" guy, his actions and the resulting events prove that he was wasn't. Whether he was mentally incompetent to judge reality or actually believed that it was OK to have people murdered and wage war on his neighbors, his opinion was still wrong.

0 Replies

Re: Hitler

joefromchicago wrote:

How do you know there is no such thing as "bad" in absolute terms?

Good point... I can't prove it and I don't know for sure. But then again, what do we know for sure? Do we even exist? Does the chair you're sitting on really exist? Prove that all of it is not alien-injected pseudo-realism (similar to "The Matrix", the movie).

I'm simply using Occam's Razor in conjunction with the available evidence. The concepts of Good and Bad are things that are even complicated and subjective among people on Earth (Hitler being one of the less complicated examples as most people view him as "Bad"). What would make you think that a Universal "Good" or "Bad" makes more sense if we can't even get it straight in our own back yard?

Also, would you say that all human beings are evil in absolute terms? I'm asking because we kill animals for food, and animals are capable of feeling pain. Are we all evil because we inflict pain on living beings?
We might be "bad" for their own well being, but we're not bad in absolute terms as there is no benchmark in the first place (the benchmark is one's opinion).

joefromchicago wrote:

c_logic wrote:
We can, and we do it all the time... from a subjective perspective.

That may be true, but why should you care?

Because the modern society (and our personal innate feelings and opinions) make Hitler a bad guy - somebody who caused people harm. In other words, Hitler is rarely associated with warm and fuzzy feelings.

joefromchicago wrote:

No, it's not perfectly reasonable at all. If all judgments of "bad" or "good" are merely descriptions of personal feelings, such that the statement "Hitler is bad" is equivalent to the statement "Hitler makes me feel bad," then anyone who asserts the statement "Hitler is bad" as an absolute judgment is making a false claim.

No... it's not an absolute judgement. It may sound like it but it's not. It's a judgement that's relative to one's own personality and one's own culture. When I said it, I meant it as such (relative to the modern world/culture). When other people say it... yes, it's possible that they mean it in absolute terms, especially if they believe in absolute good and evil. (which I wouldn't agree with)
If Germany had managed to conquer the world, Hitler would be viewed as a "liberator" and somebody who "cleaned up" the world for the "worthy races". Mass murder that was performed would not be viewed as such, but rather as a necessity for a better tomorrow. Instead of us discussing whether Hitler was bad or not, we would probably be discussing whether he was the "the greatest person who ever lived".

It's all relative, cultural, and situational when it comes to Good and Bad.
The current culture makes Hitler Bad.

0 Replies

Re: Hitler

Terry wrote:

If you said, "In Hitler's opinion, he was not a bad guy," it may be true that he believed that (I have no idea what he really thought). But Hitler was a bad guy. He may have rationalized what he did, but it was still undeniably wrong to hurt so many innocent people.

Do you think - in a deeper sense - it was ultimately Hitler's fault for being "messed up" and a "bad" guy?
Did he have a choice regarding his opinions/personality/behavior?

0 Replies

minipb wrote

Quote:

Hello,

Just talking about some of my problems, and what I like to do with people.

Often I tell people something, and they belive me! I speak crap, I don't need any evidence or anything and people will take my word for it.

Ever since I was a kid I learned to use my body language in a way that most people (actually, make that most EDUCATED and INTELIGENT people) will believe me over anyone else in every situation (well, almost every).

People ignore their own cognition, if that's the right word for it, and believe illogical BS coming from me.

The thing about this is I LOVE IT!

But the thing I love most is when one person says something that I know is true, but I contradict them in my convincing way, and then these poor innocent people believe ME every time!

And better, every time I do this with the same group of people I get more trusted, and the other guy less and less trusted as I go on with this!

It's sick, I know but I just can't get enough.

I also like to use people. Not for any particular reason, but just because I get a thril from it. It's POWER.

I'm not sure I want to change either. I thought once in my early teens (I'm 28) should I get a psychologist? Naahh! Lifes too good.

I fear nothing. In fact I don't really know what fear is. But other people apparently suffer it, I can feel it.

I love getting INNOCENT people all worked up and fearing me, and getting anxiety. Sometimes they get anxiety when I'm around and I haven't even done anything!

I don't know, does it sound like I should give up?

Usually if I really want to mess somebody up, I get somebody else to do it. Forget 'victims' (HA) attacking me and putting up with retaliation. If I can get away with it, let somebody else be my tool.

Usually a person in their early 20's is most gullable. They get excited over verry little, and have no real direction as to what they want to do with their life. And even though I know they'd be better off without me using them, screw it, I use them any way.

I think I need to. Everyone has their needs. Mine is tricking and confusing people.

People are too stupid ... so in a way it's their own fault - not mine.

One thing that gets me ... I hope somebody can explain .... is when people say 'this is immoral' and 'that is immoral' bla bla bla

Sometimes I (sometimes I use somebody else) need to search through a persons belongings, bag, computer, web history/cache, etc. to get information I want. But that's BS that it's the wrong thing to do if you NEED the information.

But then I use that information against people! Wrong but exciting.

What more can I say? Control is my life. Controlling people and Sh~tting people around is my business.

..........Form your own conclusions about this thread !

0 Replies

c_logic, I have argued both sides of the free will issue. While I agree that nature and nurture have a tremendous effect on our decisions, I now think that our conscious minds are capable of overriding both. Hitler's experiences in life affected his beliefs and opinions but it was his choice to act on them as he did.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

..........Form your own conclusions about this thread !

Yeah... I thought that the original post was a little strange sounding... Confused

Nevertheless, it did lead to a meaningful debate.

0 Replies

Re: Hitler

c_logic wrote:

Good point... I can't prove it and I don't know for sure. But then again, what do we know for sure? Do we even exist? Does the chair you're sitting on really exist? Prove that all of it is not alien-injected pseudo-realism (similar to "The Matrix", the movie).

If we are all inhabiting an elaborate computer program that simulates reality, then there's really no point in talking about morality. But then there would be no point in talking about anything else, either. All of our assertions of empirical fact are premised on the assumption that our senses are reasonably and predictably reliable in translating information from the outside world to our minds and that we are not disembodied brains in vats. If, on the other hand, we are disembodied brains in vats, then we should care as much about the crimes of Hitler as we care about the misdeeds of ghosts, pixies, or any other figmentary products of our imaginations.

c_logic wrote:

I'm simply using Occam's Razor in conjunction with the available evidence. The concepts of Good and Bad are things that are even complicated and subjective among people on Earth (Hitler being one of the less complicated examples as most people view him as "Bad"). What would make you think that a Universal "Good" or "Bad" makes more sense if we can't even get it straight in our own back yard?

First of all, you're not using Occam's Razor.

Secondly, you claim that no one can make a universal ethical assertion, but you make a universal factual assertion when you say that there is no universal "good" or "bad." But why is your factual assertion valid and the ethical assertion invalid?

c_logic wrote:

Also, would you say that all human beings are evil in absolute terms? I'm asking because we kill animals for food, and animals are capable of feeling pain. Are we all evil because we inflict pain on living beings?
We might be "bad" for their own well being, but we're not bad in absolute terms as there is no benchmark in the first place (the benchmark is one's opinion).

No, I would not say all humans are absolutely evil, although if I were a cow I might have a different viewpoint. But then if I were a cow I'd also, more than likely, have a different definition of "evil" That doesn't mean that "evil" is necessarily a relative concept, it just means that morality is only intelligible as a concept when it is applied solely to humans.

c_logic wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
c_logic wrote:
We can, and we do it all the time... from a subjective perspective.

That may be true, but why should you care?

Because the modern society (and our personal innate feelings and opinions) make Hitler a bad guy - somebody who caused people harm. In other words, Hitler is rarely associated with warm and fuzzy feelings.

Again, why should you care?

c_logic wrote:

No... it's not an absolute judgement. It may sound like it but it's not. It's a judgement that's relative to one's own personality and one's own culture. When I said it, I meant it as such (relative to the modern world/culture). When other people say it... yes, it's possible that they mean it in absolute terms, especially if they believe in absolute good and evil. (which I wouldn't agree with)

The people who are making the assertions, however, mean them to be absolute statements. So how do you know that they're wrong?

c_logic wrote:

It's all relative, cultural, and situational when it comes to Good and Bad.

I am convinced that that's wrong.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

..........Form your own conclusions about this thread !

A valid point, and one that we should all bear in mind in the event that any of us are tempted to respond to the original post in this thread.

0 Replies

bm, I'd like to come back to this.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

fresco wrote:
..........Form your own conclusions about this thread !

A valid point, and one that we should all bear in mind in the event that any of us are tempted to respond to the original post in this thread.

Seems to me, either this guy/girl has an interest in human psychology, and likes to test reactions to extreme statements, or he's looking for validation of a pathological mind-set. My money is on the former.

To determine if Hitler was a bad guy, all we need to do is agree on what we mean by "a bad guy" and see if he fits. (Pretty snugly, by my own standards.)

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

To determine if Hitler was a bad guy, all we need to do is agree on what we mean by "a bad guy" and see if he fits. (Pretty snugly, by my own standards.)

Not by mine either. But standards are based on the moral compass of the time in which I live.There's no doubt, looking at history that standards of behaviour are viewed differently at different times. Putting aside the fact that Hitler had available to him 'modern' technology, how would he have been judged if he'd existed at the time of Gengis Khan? Judgements about right v wrong have evolved over time.

0 Replies

Hitler

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know