Printable View
I'm saying that there is in the end some objective measure by which an act and a person can be called evil, just like there I believe there is with art. Kiki has made arguments in favour of the subjectivity of morality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
Kiki go to a school-house, grab a piece of white chalk and write on the board the following phrase as many times as it takes before it finally sinks in:
An evil person is a person who does evil things.
An evil person is a person who does evil things.
An evil person is a person who does evil things.
An evil person is a person who does evil things.
An evil person is a person who does evil things.
......
By your logic I am an evil person because I have done evil thing. So following your logic I am equall to Hitler....Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
I have a standard by which I distinguish an evil act from a bad act and therefore an evil person from a bad person. While the young Japanese soldier was raping the 13 year old Chinese girl and while he slitted her throat and then turned his malevolent gaze upon her sister or her mother, he was evil. I do believe in redemption. Heck, if Hitler had lived, spent the rest of his life in prison, perhaps he'd have experienced growth personally and morally and become something less of a monster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
You find that response a travesty because it makes more sense than yours will ever do and it even took your arguments and quotes on board and showed you that you did not know what you are in fact talking about and quoting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
'Good' in this way does not equal 'doing good', but is a parameter of quality. I think I still know when I can use the adjectives I use. Or were you arguing catharsis (if that is at all possible)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
It fits your quote like a tee that 'in no culture anywhere at anytime has it been the status quo for the average person to go about raping, killing and enslaving indiscriminately and not receive condemnation.' I showed you clearly that that is not at all the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
I merely repeat what critics have pointed out. Don't get angry about it. Fact is, Alexander killed his friend in a fit of rage. Thus he is evil according to your own definition. That is true, period, according to you. As evil as Hitler. Oh, no, wait that is not what you meant, right. Of course that is not what you meant but still it is what you are in effect arguing at this very moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Go on, deny it.
I don't know whether you mean sh*t or f*ck, but I gather it is something along those lines. It is only people who cannot express themselves any longer who use those words. Usually people get enraged at moments like this and vow not to waste their time anymore because they know they are in the wrong. As I showed you, you have not properly considered your own beliefs and their logical consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Think of me as a Socrates and you as a Meno and we might get somewhere.
Other way around bud.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
I can think of really good people who in moments of weakness did wrong things, not evil things but wrong things. According to your standard of good and evil these people fall short of being good.I made this point earlier but you conveniently ignored it. You can't call anyone good. Its absurd, simply absurd.Quote:
'Good' in this way does not equal 'doing good', but is a parameter of quality. I think I still know when I can use the adjectives I use. Or were you arguing catharsis (if that is at all possible)?
I said right after that sentence that one culture will do it to another culture but not within their own culture in a gross indiscriminate manner. You ignored that inconvenient addendum though, of course. And THE EXCEPTIONS PROVE THE RULE. Or is that too nuanced for you?Quote:
It fits your quote like a tee that 'in no culture anywhere at anytime has it been the status quo for the average person to go about raping, killing and enslaving indiscriminately and not receive condemnation.' I showed you clearly that that is not at all the case.
Yes Kiki, committing a crime of passion puts you on the same level as a genocidal tyrant with the blood of six million innocents on his hands. Good sound logic you have there. My, a lot of horses must be going hungry for all the straw you gathered together to construct that straw man. How evil of you to cause such widespread horse famine.Quote:
I merely repeat what critics have pointed out. Don't get angry about it. Fact is, Alexander killed his friend in a fit of rage. Thus he is evil according to your own definition. That is true, period, according to you. As evil as Hitler. Oh, no, wait that is not what you meant, right. Of course that is not what you meant but still it is what you are in effect arguing at this very moment.
If Socrates adhered to your manner of thinking Western culture never would have made it out of the dark ages. The Platonic dialogues would have been used by the monks as toilet paper. The Muslims would have used them to start fires.Quote:
Think of me as a Socrates and you as a Meno and we might get somewhere.
I think the film Downfall might help you there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Very, very, very good film. Hammered it home.
Yes it did. It showed that Hitler was a hateful coward to the very end. He wound up resenting the German people and doing all within his power to make defeat as horrible for them as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
A veritable Socratically spirited person would never liken themselves to Socrates.
I think not, my friend. Why do you got enraged then? Because you were rejoycing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
And you are chaning your beliefs as we speak. Now suddenly there are evil things and wrong things. I have always maintained that no-one is perfect. That goes for good and evil. I thought I told you that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
That is not absurd.
I said there is a difference between a play that is good and a person who is deemed 'good'. Or I asked, are you arguing catharsis? (something which you clearly did not get)
No, one culture to another then. And still the Christians killed their own as in the Cathars. The Muslims are killing each other as we speak. The Syrians as well. And the Lybians. Not to mention the maffia and drugs gangs on a smaller scale. Not to mention that riots broke out between monks in Jerusalem last year I think. Henry VIII did his best to kill and frighten away the Catholics because the pope did not want to divorce him. And those nuns and priests were English into the bargain. The English civil war saw Roundheads against Cavaliers. Both English. They did not agree about the king... Oh, the Irish fought a civil war and the ensuing IRA. Not to mention the ETA in Spain. That is indiscriminate killing, isn't it, of your own people and culture?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
So I guess now indiscriminate killing is alright between cultures, so Hitler's killing was OK, then. He did not consider the Jews German after all.
And your point being exactly? I merely took your definition and applied it. If there is something wrong with the result, then there is something wrong with the definition. Not my fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
And he did adhere to it. Go on, if you know better, what does that quote mean, that 'No man desires evil.' In the Dark Ages, he was forgotten as he was stuck in the East with the Muslims. It was only in the Renaissance he cropped up again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Essentially he argues that man will want something and use the means to get it. Naturally, for that man, those ends can never be evil. Locke thought the same and so did Hobbes. And of course, if the end turns out to be bad in itself, the consequences will return to haunt the perpetrator, however he cannot have thought the end was evil when he did it, because man, nor animal is so stupid to do something to harm himself if he knows that from the start. I know it is hard to imagine, but it is simple and a truth that stands like a house as they say in Dutch.
Wrongdoing = ignorance. And there is your cause.
Again, empathy does not equal compassion. Although it has several definitions (maybe we should also here find a functioning one ), its primary idea consists of being able to recognise the feelings of someone else, maybe experiencing them too. I may point out that psychopaths have a notorious lack of that, in anything and to anyone. Why do you get so enraged about something that does not suit you?
So everyone who has a normal sense of "right" and "wrong"... who takes a moral stance upon something as clear-cut as the Holocaust, as opposed to espousing the morality of a Nazi sympathizer, offering up endless excuses, or a mindless moral relativist who believes that "good" and "evil" are but meaningless terms as its all one and the same can be equated with a psychopath? And who is getting enraged?
Because you can find no means to make me do what you like?
I doubt Darcy has the least thought of changing your mind. That would demand both the ability to think logically and humanely as well as the ability to change, neither of which you seem to have in any great abundance. I suspect, however, that he, like myself, continues posting rebuttals to your inane comments so as to offer some alternative to your repeated apologies and excuses for the Holocaust and Adolf Hitler for others who frequent this site to consider.
Again, I am not at all denying any of his responsibility...
Really? It seems to me that you have repeatedly attempted to deny responsibility by laying equal blame upon his upbringing, his childhood, his experiences in WWI, the French, the English, the whole history of antisemitism, and indeed the whole of society... going on to suggest that anyone of us might have become as he had we been placed in the same circumstances. It is indeed important that we seek out experiences and elements that have contributed to the creation of a figure such as Adolf Hitler or an event such as the Holocaust so as to be aware and alert to the possibility of history repeating itself... but this in no way absolves Hitler (or Himmler or Mengele) from one iota of responsibility for their actions and their actions were of such unmitigated evil that one can only call the individuals responsible for the same "evil".
I can call him bad, but I cannot call him the embodiment of evil. Why do you wish to turn that around in sympathy or even compassion? Because it does not suit your black-and-white view of everything or what? Tough sh*t. Deal with it.
"A Black and White view of the world?" Did you really say that? It seems to me that even accepting that there are endless variations of gray when it comes to the questions of morality and "good" and "evil" Hitler comes about as close to black on the spectrum as possible. You, it would seem, would have us all believe that he falls into some neutral range of gray along with the rest of the majority of humanity. You systematically kill millions of innocent human beings and we place you in the same ring in Dante's Inferno as the guy who once cheated on his taxes.
It is not I who need to splash water in my face. I just do what most Third Reich historians have done: try to understand, not condemn and stop. Condemn and stop is cowardish.
No one has suggested that it is not important to come to some sense of understanding as to the elements that helped trigger historical events, however, a sense of understanding does not exclude taking a moral stance, including the condemnations of genocide and the individuals who carried out such widespread and wholesale acts of murder. The only cowardice apparent here is the cowardice in refusing to take such a moral stance. Edmund Burke fully understood this when he stated, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Ok Kiki, I concede. You are right. Your examples of immorality prove that it was as normal to kill and rape as it was to knead dough and to defecate, since that is what I obviously, throughout many posts, meant.
You can't call anyone "good" though Kiki. Maybe I'm weird but that seems absurd to me.
Wrongdoing comes from ignorance but it does not in itself equate to ignorance. Wrongdoing is wrongdoing. A good person is a person who does good things, an evil person one who does evil things. This is the point on which we will never agree. I still don't understand why. Your standard of perfection is not one used in most other instances. Why you apply it to evil I do not know.
Kiki you've populated this thread with more straw men than were carved soldiers in Qin Shi Huang's terracotta army.
I knew that was where the problem lay. No, my friend, that was not the meaning of the film according. The meaning of the film was to show viewers Hitler as a man who could be kind to his secretaries and who was afraid by the end, and not as a kind of mythical 'evil' figure like you term him. That way, his acts become even more gruesome because they are acts induced by a human being who could be kind to the one, yet ruthless to the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
No? And why not pray? Because 'no man is wiser than Socrates'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
I have recently bought a copy with the intention of reading, but haven't got round to it yet. I have a long list of other stuff to read. Should I read it through a gap in my fingers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Once again st.lukes, you like darcy have completley misunderstood what Kiki was saying.
First of we are not saying that Hitler was not responsible, neither are we denying the monstrosity of his acts. But saying Hitler was evil and did evil things is not enough. It is a shallow view of the way thing were, and it is that same shallow view which will lead to other Hitlers in the future, because instead of trying to understand what is arguably one of the most schocking and complex moments of history you are trying to blanket it under a simple "hitler was evil.. the end". I aplogize but that view on things is usless.
Firstly do you think Hitler did everything by himself? I hope not. Because there was an entire system, thousands if not millions of men who were all equally part of it. SO laying the entire blame on hitler is at once narrow minded, and also clouding our view. It is very easy to say it was all Hitler, it is a bit more complex once we realize that Hitler was just a charcater in a very long tradgedy, there were many men worst than Hitler, and the modern historical view is that Hitler was pushed into may things.
Now, let me make a modern anology. All the republicans in america look at the economy and say look, this is all Obamas fault. To all of us this seems a very biased and limited view. Because we know that this econimical collapse is not obamas fault, but the fault of the last 30 odd years of national zeitgesit and political and financial systems which would inevitably lead to the finacial collapse.
Saying the Holocaust was all Hitler is to me as narrow minded as saying the bad economy is all obama. There was a system before it which was leading towards that inevitable moment that was the holocaust. Hitler was just a pawn in the scheme of things, a big pawn, but nonethless just part of a cultural and political ziestgeist which was moving towards its natural conclusion, namley the holocaust. To all the men who knew what The Kaisser and his army and scientists were doing to the Herero and Namaqua people in their affircan colonies at the begining of the 20th century, the holocuats 40 odd years later would have come as no suprise. But everyone was suprised. Because most people behaved like you and Darcy in this situation and instead of choosing to examine the complexity of history and scrutinize, they just chose to lay out uninformed blanket statements to make history more ordered and simpler to understand, which leads to ignorance and the mistakes of the past being repeated.
Here read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_...maqua_Genocide
And then try telling me about the "uniquness of Hitler" and how no one saw it coming, and how the holocaust was hitlers sole creation.
I appologize if I come of as bitter and personaly attacking you (darcy and st.lukes) but this subject gets me heated up, as in your attitudes I see the ingoring of history and obscuring of truth, just so that the world can be ordered in a more simple and satifying manner. And it is this very attitude which will lead to the horrors of the past being repeated in the future, because the truth of the past remains unknwon and everyone is there waving flags and cheering because this new guy, he is nothing at all like the evil men of before. truth is, that when this "new savior" comes and you shall be cheering him on, he shall appear to you nothign like the mosneters of the past, because your image of the monsters of the past is mainly fictitious and is disjointed from the truth. What you guys preach is the benefit of ignorance, and it is this ignorance which shall damn us some day.
And you are a teacher? Can you actually teach anything else than what you approve of? I would say, 'no', as you keep twisting what I say and deliberately misunderstand.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Because I merely asked that we do not stop at condemnation which is what condemnation mostly leads to: nothing, and again, that is what we have done for the past 60 years. Has it helped? No.
Instead we keep on ignoring the signs of such regimes and keep on ignoring the solutions to such regimes. A regime does rarely stand with a dictator on its own, it stands with a whole culture behind it and a whole lot of supporters. And yet what do we usually do if we depose dictators? We hope everything will be alright again. That is what has been learned from the calamity in 1945. Sure, call him evil and Hitler takes on mythical proportions and that is what Der Untergang tried to hammer home. Hitler is not an evil daemon, but a man of flesh-and-blood who happened to have bad ideas and unleashed them on the world together with a few followers and with massive support. That makes the Holocaust so much more than the wacky plan of an evil man. But no. We consider him evil and thus, the Holocaust is merely the act of an evil man, as if a devil had come onto the world. But Pol Pot did the very same! Even announced it on the radio. Ok, not in camps, he just left them to die of starvation. He killed his own people, up to a quarter of them (estimates vary).
Once again - I do believe people refuse to listen and read - I have never made excuses nor apologies for it. I merely said that this was not only his idea, but the idea of a whole society, culture and century even. That is what made his ideas catch on. Are you denying that they caught on or what?Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
That is all. If you ask me, that is worse in fact than only citing Hitler as responsible for it. But there you go: not fashionable, so no good.
All of those rebuttals only show the fact that the two of you are after a moral stance which everyone frankly knows and takes (apart from the minority) and holds and that you are not interested in anything else. We know all of it, we know what those people did, that that was despicable and so on, yet the world lets the same happen as we speak because we have failed to understand that the only means to eradicate such excesses is to understand and not condemn.
No, I have named many causes apart from Hitler's own bad ideas (and causes for those ideas) which make it more logical if you will that he emerged. I never said it absolved them of anything. I merely named those reasons and facts and said that if all those circumstances together had not occurred, this would never have happened. But it did. You see, look back, I said it again, it did. It did. The Holocaust did happen. Sad but true. Still, condemning and stopping is in no way beneficial to examination whatsoever. You deliberately misinterpret my words as if you are out to make me a Nazi. It is just not true and you know it. So stop with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
What is this absolute desire of yours to call him 'evil'? Why? Because you think it is easy or because they taught you in school?Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I said I could call his acts evil not him as a person. So, what are you arguing about exactly? I must call him evil? Because I am your student and you say so? "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." is indeed true. And that is what usually happens after condemnation. It is not the moral stance that should be taken, that is easy, it is action that should be taken and that is mostly missing after the moral stance. People have repeatedly condemed various states for doing so and so and then? Nothing. And in the meantime the people who took that same moral stance watch how the same people they called 'evil' and 'bad' kill others.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Moral stances have no meaning if they do not lead to action.
My friend, you have a mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
Personally, my visions of evil is a bit complex.
But see that is your opinion. He makes perfect sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
So now we can blame Darcy for future evil. I don't think he is naive enough to consider any future leader of a country a savior. I also don't see any ignoring of history in his posts, I see much misspellings in yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
Wow! The one who agrees with you has a mind! How coincidental!Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
Seriously, though, you all do realize you've been repeating the same things for about the last ten pages, no? I mean, how many time can you say, "I never said that, I said this," in one thread? The hyperbole is becoming hilarious. On one hand, we now have Kiki who sympathizes with Hitler and thinks he bears absolutely no responsibility for his actions, and on the other we have Darcy and StLukes who hate Hitler so blindly, their short-sightedness will usher in the next genocidal tyrant. Both views are ridiculous, but that's where you are.
Explain that to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by KCurtis
Misspellings have nothing to do with it. And it is 'many' misspellings as they are countable.Quote:
Originally Posted by KCurtis
In ignoring the vast responsibility of any other person in this, you, Darcy and StLukes and anyone else with the same opinion are ignoring that it was not something that came out of thin air. It is surprising that it actually took so long, really.
He seems to be the only one who actually thinks, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
And I say it again, I do not sympathise. Who ever said that, that I sympathise? I for one did not. It is amazing how people can misconstrue words, if they wish.
I have repeated several times that he is responsible, jeez, how many times again: he is ultimately responsible despite his ideas having come from generations before him.
I cannot help that these two blockheads do not wish to consider historical context in this matter which turns out to be all-defining. If that is sympathising then you do not know the meaning of the word. As you are teacher as well, I would urge that you learn it.
Why, pray, do we ALWAYS accuse someone of sympathising who puts a different spin on the whole matter and offers a look from the exact other side, IF the thing people are discussing is negative? If the thing is positive you are a traitor, if it is negative a sympathiser. Why pray? Because we cannot think differently and 'what I believe is right?' Man would never have come as far as he has done if he had always taken that view. Read that post of Alexander again and tell me, what is wrong with it? What is not true in it? Is it too uncomfortable to consider a wrongdoer like Hitler as a man? No doubt that is it. It is far easier to just say 'he is evil. the end' and all those 6 million will have died in vain because you learnt nothing from their deaths. Good on you.
Even German historians have in the meantime taken a different view, since 1961.
For one of the only thinkers in this thread, Kiki, it's quite amazing how you completely missed my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
First of all, I don't need to explain anything to you, you can read for yourself. Secondly, you don't need to be so condescending, as I don't need to be corrected on my word usage- and I know what the word many means. I used the word much because I FELT LIKE IT !Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
[QUOTE=kiki1982;1121501
Is it too uncomfortable to consider a wrongdoer like Hitler as a man? No doubt that is it. It is far easier to just say 'he is evil. the end' and all those 6 million will have died in vain because you learnt nothing from their deaths. Good on you.
Even German historians have in the meantime taken a different view, since 1961.[/QUOTE]
We are not responsible- you are stating an opinion when you say we have not learned anything from their deaths. Who are you? And I knew this thread would result in insulting posts from you- I just thought it would happen sooner. Who cares what you think, really.
I'm done.
Once again st.lukes, you like darcy have completley misunderstood what Kiki was saying.
First of we are not saying that Hitler was not responsible, neither are we denying the monstrosity of his acts. But saying Hitler was evil and did evil things is not enough. It is a shallow view of the way thing were, and it is that same shallow view which will lead to other Hitlers in the future, because instead of trying to understand what is arguably one of the most schocking and complex moments of history you are trying to blanket it under a simple "hitler was evil.. the end". I aplogize but that view on things is usless.
Alex... no one is suggesting that we not explore the various historical and biographical aspects that went into the creation of Hitler, WWII, and the Holocaust. But if anything is simple-minded it is the idea that we can merely analyze history and biography and come up with a clear cause and effect that might be used to guarantee that history will never repeat itself..
Let turn to the opposite side of the spectrum of "exceptionality", and take William Shakespeare, for example. We cannot simply assign the brilliance of his artistic achievements to the mere accidents of history and society. Certainly there must have been an endless array of individuals whose biography and history were similar. And yet Shakespeare remains an exceptional individual... not merely a product of society and biography. By the same token, neither history nor biography alone explain Hitler... nor do they vindicate nor exonerate from responsibility. It would seem to me that an individual who is unquestionably responsible for the systematic murder of millions of innocent human beings more than fits the bill of "evil".
Firstly do you think Hitler did everything by himself? I hope not. Because there was an entire system, thousands if not millions of men who were all equally part of it. SO laying the entire blame on hitler is at once narrow minded, and also clouding our view. It is very easy to say it was all Hitler, it is a bit more complex once we realize that Hitler was just a charcater in a very long tradgedy, there were many men worst than Hitler, and the modern historical view is that Hitler was pushed into may things.
Alex, knowing you, I suspect that this entire debate is of little or no real interest. You simply take the position of the "devil's advocate" to play at portraying yourself as an original thinker, willing to shock. You seemingly had no problem taking a stern moral position when it came to someone calling your mother a b***h, and yet here you would suggest that we take the time to weight endless nuances of "right" and "wrong" when it comes to genocide. Of course others were involved in the Holocaust and in facilitating Hitler's rise to power. Does that fact absolve Hitler from blame... or rather does it not simply mean that there were others equally deserving of blame and/or being termed as "evil".
Now, let me make a modern anology. All the republicans in america look at the economy and say look, this is all Obamas fault. To all of us this seems a very biased and limited view. Because we know that this econimical collapse is not obamas fault, but the fault of the last 30 odd years of national zeitgesit and political and financial systems which would inevitably lead to the finacial collapse.
Saying the Holocaust was all Hitler is to me as narrow minded as saying the bad economy is all obama.
You analogy really stretches things far beyond any degree of reason.
Hitler was just a pawn in the scheme of things, a big pawn, but nonethless just part of a cultural and political ziestgeist which was moving towards its natural conclusion, namley the holocaust.
If Hitler was but a "pawn" then no one, no where, at any time is more than but a "pawn"... and I highly doubt you believe that. Indeed, such is one of the most inane things you have ever posted. Our individual actions, choices, and achievements are not limited to the political zeitgeist. Social realities do not make a Hitler nor a Shakespeare. How is it, for example, that the same political zeitgeist which could create a Hitler... wholly free from any responsibility for his actions (because he was but a "pawn" of history) could also produce figures such as Schindler or any number of other Germans who never lost a clear notion as to what is "right" and "wrong"... human or inhumane?
To all the men who knew what The Kaisser and his army and scientists were doing to the Herero and Namaqua people in their affircan colonies at the begining of the 20th century, the holocuats 40 odd years later would have come as no suprise.
Certainly, "evil" will never come as a surprise. Humanity forever retains the capacity to do "evil". Most human beings retain a moral compass and restrain tghemselves from acting upon thoughts that they recognize are "immoral" or "evil". I personally fantasize about mounting a Gatling Gun on the front of my car in order to deal with idiot drivers during rush hour... but I don't act upon my thoughts, which I recognize as being somewhat less than morally upright.
But everyone was suprised.
Only the naive were surprised. Only those who could not fathom the depths of evil and inhumanity that the human mind could unleash were surprised. As A Rabbi acquaintance has repeatedly stated, the only real surprise about the Holocaust is that it was not undertaken by the French.
Because most people behaved like you and Darcy in this situation and instead of choosing to examine the complexity of history and scrutinize, they just chose to lay out uninformed blanket statements to make history more ordered and simpler to understand, which leads to ignorance and the mistakes of the past being repeated.
Again... no one has suggested that we should not engage in the examination of the complexity of history... that is simply a strawman employed repeatedly, contrary to what either Darcy of I have said. But certainly you recognize that correlation and causation are not one and the same thing. We can analyze history 'til we're blue in the face... it doesn't explain Hitler nor Shakespeare... nor when and where another Hitler or Shakespeare might arise.
Here read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_...maqua_Genocide
And then try telling me about the "uniquness of Hitler" and how no one saw it coming, and how the holocaust was hitlers sole creation.
When we say Hitler was "exceptional" it need not be reduced to meaning "unique" or "sole example". Considering the great many individuals who were just as much influenced by history and and a difficult childhood and did not evolve into sociopaths who were willing to kill millions, Hitler was exceptional... or stood out from the crowd.
I appologize if I come of as bitter and personaly attacking you (darcy and st.lukes) but this subject gets me heated up, as in your attitudes I see the ingoring of history and obscuring of truth, just so that the world can be ordered in a more simple and satifying manner. And it is this very attitude which will lead to the horrors of the past being repeated in the future, because the truth of the past remains unknwon and everyone is there waving flags and cheering because this new guy, he is nothing at all like the evil men of before. truth is, that when this "new savior" comes and you shall be cheering him on, he shall appear to you nothign like the mosneters of the past, because your image of the monsters of the past is mainly fictitious and is disjointed from the truth. What you guys preach is the benefit of ignorance, and it is this ignorance which shall damn us some day.
Alex... once again this is a good act on your part. I doubt that a single individual here at LitNet (outside Kiki...) buys your outraged act when you have repeatedly made it clear that you are anything but the least little bit concerned about the faceless masses (who will be the victims of any future dictator) as you, yourself, are certainly one of the "deserving" elite. One might point out that seeing oneself above everyone else is one of the most common attributes of the common sociopath. I won't go into your comments concerning my grasp of history... which I fully understand are merely intended to add to the drama... and perhaps to impress Ms. Kiki. But you know as well as anyone here that my grasp of history quite likely far exceeds your own and that I am in no way preaching in defense of "ignorance" (again the same strawman). Although even if I were, I suspect that preaching a defense of ignorance is somehow less repugnant than preaching in defense of Hitler and the Holocaust. (See... I can play the strawman game as well as yourself:cornut:)
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait . . . StLukes, are you suggesting Alex puts on some kind of act here at LitNet? WHAAAAAAAT?!?!?!?!
Can just anyone become evil? If so, does that make it inappropriate to call them evil, once it has happened? And does calling someone evil mean that one can't comprehend the circumstances and process behind that person's descent into evil?
Even Bible thumpers... well, most of them, as far as I can tell that is--I know that Calvinists and others might be exceptions to this statement... Anyhow, even Bible thumpers typically view evil as something that tempts one (everyone), and can be resisted or succumbed to, it's a matter of circumstance that we all are warned against, and there can be forgiveness, etc. I don't think the "evil" label is simply a way to sweep things under the rug, or hold them at arm's length as something by its nature utterly separate. In most of the western world, in fact, people involved in social/political discourse are being compared to Hitler on a daily basis, there's a strong awareness that such things can happen again, the alarm is going off all the time. And it isn't because it's everywhere gone out of fashion to call him "evil" (I'm sure it hasn't).
So I don't think there's much reason to worry over applying the word "evil" to individuals such as Hitler, Charles Manson, etc., in principle or practice. Any fear of it allowing complacency to set in, or it blinding us to consideration of social/psychological factors (or whatever else) is more than offset by the danger of banishing the word (and its application to people and deeds) from sensible conversation. It's a yardstick ("Evil") for what absolutely must be regarded as inhumane. It's the difference between a nation's leader working against unfair (even evil...) oppression from abroad, and someone explicitly not recognizing a person or a race of people as being human beings, for example. That a leader might get his/her truly held ideas and the examples for his/her intended actions (of either type, responsible or evil) from someone else doesn't change this, or eliminate the distinction.
Sorry if this has all been said already, I have surely missed a lot of what's been said here. And, I have to say, it seems one hell of a burden for German people to see their country's name attached to such terrible history so often. Further, those who are coming at this from modern psychological perspectives, or from some Eastern philosophy/religious perspectives, and from any other angles that might broadly resemble Kiki's stance, I will certainly acknowledge that they are, in a very important sense, making an important point that is loaded with validity. But, while I know evil is a powerful word, and its misapplication would be dangerous, I think it's overly cautious and even more dangerous to utterly dissociate an individual from their calculated and considered actions.
Every human being? Well, except for Hitler right? And all the other tyrants supposedly who are anomalies. And the mother rapists, and the impulsive murderers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
I'll tell you right now instead, for the last time as we are going around in circles. If one believe morality is objective, therefore independent of human beings opinions, then you need to prove that. You've given me evolutionary psychology (hardly an agreed upon source of objective morality) Is morality inbuilt then, or is morality also constructed by human beings? If morality is on some level constructed by imperfect-morally grey beings with desires and uncontrollable emotions, then it is at it's very base, not objective. It's not independent of our opinions, unless you believe in a God or some such thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
There is that which is desirable to us, absolutely. There is that which makes society easier to live in (no murder, no theft), but I still fail to see anywhere set in stone, what is objectively, independent of us and our desires, moral. Subjectively and culturally, I see moral judgements, ones that I believe in, every single day. Objectively I do not.
I don't really have anything else I can add or much else to say, from a personal perspective.
I'm not arguing that Hitler was solely responsible for the holocaust. I originally said "Nazis," but even then I wouldn't say they were solely responsible. But denying that Hitler and the Nazis bear MUCH of the responsibility, and were GUILTY, in the same sense that the murderer did not invent the gun nor compel the fates to spin the web of incidents which led to his action but is nevertheless guilty of his crime.... well that is just ludicrous.
Alex your comparison of Obama to the economy and Hitler to the holocaust is spurious. A leader has way way way more power over war and genocide than he has over the economy. A better comparison would have been Bush and the Iraq War = Hitler and the holocaust.
Someone else said that France was also a rabidly anti-semitic country. No holocaust of Jews originated in that land.
Ok, so Nixon was not to blame for the escalation of the war in Vietnam, Alexander was not himself the force which took out Persia, and Caesar, a man born into nobility in a war-like culture and in the wake of several would-be tyrants like Marius and Sulla, no to Caesar cannot be attributed the civil war nor the dictatorship nor anything else that transpired while he held kingly influence over Rome.
Alex you say you mean no offence but then you say that my attitude is what may lead to other Hitlers coming to power in the future. For pete's sake man, open your eyes. I said that I myself could have become as evil as Hitler if I shared his experiences and circumstances. I said there is "nothing essentially different between me and Hitler." I fully realize the significance of the nature of the circumstances, not just the man. You and Kiki simply have some irrational hang up regarding the word evil. That's all it is.
If anything it would be your view Alex, a fatalistic view which lays blame on circumstances rather than on men, which would bring about a comparable repeat of Hitler's tenure as chancellor. In my view I see a guy like Hitler and I say, "wow, what an evil son of a *****, let's go kill the ****." In yours you say, "well, this is an anti-semitic time, the fascists have broad support, fate has thus willed it."
Anyone who denies the existence of evil individuals should imagine your own mother being repeatedly raped and then tortured and then killed, all of this done slowly, over the course of an entire week. If you would not label the person who did that evil then I don't know what to say to you.
What St Lukes just said about Shakespeare and Hitler is spot on and if reason reigned would silence this thread.
I also don't see how we would progress through further discussion. Objective morality is so self evident to me discussing it is akin to describing the sun to one blind from birth. Call if faith or whatever you will, but all the admirable men from every age and every place all correspond to a fixed pattern of virtue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre Menard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Fair enough. It's been interesting nonetheless and one of the reasons I lurked around this forum for quite a while was because of the obviously intelligent people involved in all manner of discussion.
My friend, you have a mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
To be fair, I'm pretty sure Alex's first language is Italian.Quote:
Originally Posted by KCurtis
That, and evolutionary psychology also accounts for "evil." If one monkey bashes another's brains in and steals his banana, the one who's willing to kill has a higher likelihood of passing on it's genes. Evolutionary theory could be used to explain and support any aspect of human behavior, that's it's flaw when one is attempting to use it in debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre Menard
Mutatis, it seems that I misunderstood you. I still don't get it, but I suppose it'll come to me one day. I will only be wiser than the day before that. :)
And it seems indeed we are going around in circles.
Morality is not absolute and people can get somehow torn away from what is right. Citing people like Schindler and a few others does not hold up in the face of al those millions who evidently did not even consider the wrongness of what they were doing or chose not to think about it, for whatever reason.
Evil exists and corrupts, does not consume.
If we can't use evolutionary theory in a debate then there is much that we cannot debate. Evolutionary psychology accounts for good and for evil. In a morally relativistic view everything is good or everything is evil or everything is neither of those.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Does no one really see what I mean when I talk about this stuff? There is a reason we are not all sociopaths. If we all had sociopathic genes our species never would have evolved. Compassion and brotherhood and fluffy sounding things like that are actually biological imperatives that have enabled us as a species to survive and evolve. In good or ideal circumstances I believe most people choose kindness and love towards other members of their community and not random violence. Why is this? Because its how we have evolved.
Its like my philosophy professor said: "its objectively wrong to randomly kill newborn babies." Little moral relativist that I was I thought he was full of ****. Now it seems beamingly obvious that he was right. He said anyone who disagrees with such a statement is someone you can't discuss moral issues with."
Then your philosophy professor held a particular opinion and he is welcome to it like you are, but it does not make someone else's opinion wrong, does it. There may be a lot of situations where killing babies may be right (and the Greeks and Romans did it apparently, only outlawed in 374AD!) so therefore, Socrates would have proved him wrong if he was there. A philosopher should know better.
As a species we have maybe cared for our old and weak, but there were moments where we did not because it was necessary. Even Jews beat each other in the camps for food and you can see that kind of stuff happening when the Red Cross goes to places where there has been famine for a while. Man just turns into beast at that point and he does not care for his neighbour, if only he has food to feed his and his own.
In good or ideal circumstances we do not do that, no. And why? Because there is no need for anything else. That's why.
Okay, so you think there is nothing inherently objectively wrong with "randomly" killing newborn babies. You don't think there is anything inherently objectively wrong with raping one's own mother. That's your opinion. Its a worthless opinion in my view, the opinion of my professor vastly superior.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
If we are to take Plato's earlier dialogues as any indication of what Socrates was all about then we must recognize that Socrates posited the existence of an objective human moral good. Anyone who doesn't has their head stuck where the sun doesn't shine. Courage and cowardice, love and spite, strength and weakness, industriousness and laziness, no, nothing objective to the particular values we ascribe to such things. Its all relative. The weak hateful coward is according to another perspective just as good as the strong loving man of courage. Who am I, who is anyone to make categorical statements. Okay then.