Evil Hitler

Well in this case I think we need to work from a set of similar defintions to have a proper discussion. Oxford and Merriam-Webster and Cambridge are all a good starting point.

Based on this Hitler was indeed evil. He caused deliberate suffering and death to millions and plunged the world into war with a goal of exterminating or enslaving many people. This fits every definition of the word evil we can see above or even the more day to day meaning people have given the word.

He might have started out with goals that are even understandable. Such as saving Germany from what was arguably crippling sanctions put on them by the world after WW1, how he chose to go about those goals and who he picked to blame and worse yet how he chose to deal with those he blamed was reprehensible. While history can be painted with rose colors it does not change the facts. Demonizing people to justify the slaughter of innocent people does not make the slaughter ok. It just fools the blind into accepting the reasoning.

I mean I still find the act of Hiroshima and Nagasaki despicable even if the outcome was, by and large, better then the alternative of a land war in Japan. It does not change the fact that the US slaughtered countless innocent lives in the act willfully and knowingly and could have avoided it. Now having been in the military I know better than most that bad things have to be done by good people in war. But there are lines and Hitler crossed so many as to be unforgivable in my eyes.

Arisaig wrote:

Rickie wrote: Then is seems to me those that idolize his ideology are evil if they recognize it or not?

Yes, but only to those that view it differently. Many truths are dependant on your point of view.

(Not defending them, Nazi's are evil in my eyes and have no place in the modern world)

If truth is dependent on point of view then do you espouse a philosophy of might makes right?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Arisaig wrote:

Rickie wrote: Then is seems to me those that idolize his ideology are evil if they recognize it or not?

Yes, but only to those that view it differently. Many truths are dependant on your point of view.

(Not defending them, Nazi's are evil in my eyes and have no place in the modern world)

If truth is dependent on point of view then do you espouse a philosophy of might makes right?

If enough people band together with the same viewpoint, the same sense of right, then yeah, might through numbers makes right. But a single person strongarming their way around trying to prove themselves right in a sea of people who think they're wrong, they will go unheard.

Arisaig wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Arisaig wrote:

Rickie wrote: Then is seems to me those that idolize his ideology are evil if they recognize it or not?

Yes, but only to those that view it differently. Many truths are dependant on your point of view.

(Not defending them, Nazi's are evil in my eyes and have no place in the modern world)

If truth is dependent on point of view then do you espouse a philosophy of might makes right?

If enough people band together with the same viewpoint, the same sense of right, then yeah, might through numbers makes right. But a single person strongarming their way around trying to prove themselves right in a sea of people who think they're wrong, they will go unheard.

So if your town or nation decided your entire family who have done nothing wrong ( IE never broke a law, they just exist peacefully) needed to be tortured and then killed it suddenly becomes moral and right just because numbers are on their side? Im sorry but not just no but heck no and there is nothing in the Jedi code or any Jedi teaching that would give credit to this.
The fact is that just because enough people support something vile does not make it right. There are things that are wrong in and of themselves no matter how we try to justify them.

The belief that the earth is flat is (somehow) becoming more and more popular.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies


Here is a picture of the earth, taken from space....



Here is a picture of the earth from +30,000 ft. Notice the curvature.




Heres an article that explains how you might prove for yourself that the earth is round.
https://www.space.com/38931-kids-can-prove-earth-round.html

Yet, people still believe the Earth is flat. More and more every day, it seems.
Can the actual shape of the earth be changed by public opinion?
If people refuse to hear the truth because they dont like it, or because they dont like the messenger, is the truth less true? Or are the people who refuse to listen just wrong?

@Ob1 We are talking about morals not scientific facts. The earth is round, that is fact no matter how much people argue. Morals, however, change with the demographic, psycho-graphic, and beliefs of the group.

@Hatter Yes, unfortunatly that would make it morally right in their eyes. Thankfully we have an unspoken set of morals in my country that people adhere to. Torture is agreed on, generally, to be wrong. Those that think it right are in the minority, and so it is wrong. The Nazi's did not think genocide was wrong because they all agreed. They were the majority in their area, so they acted on it. The rest of the world rebelled against that and fought against the injustices. That is the Force balancing itself. What is wrong will find light rising to meet it.

Example, in the 10:40 Window (an area where being a Christian isn't illegal, but no one will stop a lynching and torture of Christians) it is perceived as wrong to be Christian. You can be killed for it. You can be tortured to death for it. You can find yourself being machete to death in the street by a stranger for it. And the police wont bat and eye. That is because the majority think it to be right. Do we think its right? No, of course not. But we have a different viewpoint. We'd stop that kind of stuff. Does that mean its wrong there? No. Unfortunately, to say it is to them would be racist and very ethnocentric.

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.

Guys, he's taking about morals. Let's not jump to extremes.

JLSpinner wrote: Guys, he's taking about morals. Let's not jump to extremes.

We're talking about morals in the context of Hitler being morally justifiable. Thats pretty extreme.

We dont always talk to each other with sugar plums and bubbles around here but im pretty sure Arisaig is one of those people that most everyone likes. Im betting that he is as safe here as a person can be expressing an opinion on the internets lol

OB1Shinobi wrote: We dont always talk to each other with sugar plums and bubbles around here but im pretty sure Arisaig is one of those people that pretty much everyone likes. Im betting that he is as safe here as a person can be on the internets lol

Ahwe shucks Ob1.

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.

JLSpinner wrote: Guys, he's taking about morals. Let's not jump to extremes.

As Obi1 said we are talking in the light of extremes of behavior by the very topic. Plus Arisaig is one of the people here that can take a bit of back and forth. If I was being a jerk or not behaving like a Jedi he would call me on it or at least I hope he would.

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.