In defense of Hitler

[Skler]

That doesn't have anything to do with what I said. I understand your point, but I have trouble seeing how bombing Hiroshima "defended" the United States. Sure, it may have prevented more troops from dying, but it killed thousands in the process. Are we considering Americans more important than other people?

From a purely military standpoint I would not put my men at risk when there is a much safer solution, let alone all the troops who would have died invading Japan (we estimated it at what, half a million American losses).

"In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing."

Basically, I'd still drop the bomb if that decision was there today. You don't just throw away 500,000 men when your enemy isn't even guaranteed to surrender. You don't throw away 500,000 men at all. We even warned them about our super weapon and they thought we were kidding. We weren't bluffing.

As far as the "we targeted innocents" argument goes, we did not. We targeted their military bases and factories, it just so happens all those other buildings were close enough to get hit too. That may sound callous, and it is, but you can evacuate cities (that have lots of military value) when your enemy says they have a weapon that flattens them without question.

About the OP: The OP is completely silly, there came a point where Hitler was clearly insane. He didn't stop at stealing everything the Jews had, he still decided to KILL THEM ALL. He even killed non-German Jews who had no way of even knowing WHY they were being targeted in the first place. Even then, no matter how demented you are killing innocents to keep your army's morale up (look at all the evil Jews we're killing!) is an unquestionably evil thing.

Hitler is almost the definition of evil. He wasn't always that way, but there came a point where he would do anything for power and hated everything that wasn't the way he wanted it to be. You can't say Hitler is not evil, he may be evil because of how his life went, but he was still an evil man. He wasn't born that way but he ended up becoming that way. That is all that matters.

 

[rvkevin]

No. Just because it may have prevented casualties in the future does not make it self defense. Maybe if Japan was planning on nuking America and the bomb was in Hiroshima or something, but the dropping of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima was clearly an offensive maneuver, not one to protect the safety of the country.

Self-defense is offensive in nature. When a police officer shoots a suspect in self-defense, the act of shooting him is an offensive maneuver. It doesn't change the fact that it was self-defense. However, one could argue that the reaction was out of proportion, but if 12-7 was the reason for entering the war, any action thereafter could be called self-defense.

Did you not read the definition? I posted it for a reason.

I don't think morality exists in the mind. Nor do I think morality pertains to a characteristic of an individual.

There were no Japanese troops on American soil.

The only attack on American soil was an attack on a military base, with no civilian targets attacked barring civilians working on the base.

So a US military base does not count as American soil? I tend to think that the US Military is part of the US.

It was a decision made to kill hundreds of thousands of uninvolved civilians to protect thousands of soldiers by scaring Japan into submission.

Isn't that the definition of terrorism?

"Hiroshima had a high concentration of troops, military facilities and military factories that had not yet been subject to significant damage." If the reason for using the atomic bomb was purely for the highest number of civilian casualties, then it would have been unethical. However, civilian deaths are inevitable in the course of war, especially when considering the lack of precision bombing. To put this in perspective, over the course of the war, there were 22,597,200 to 25,497,500 military deaths compared to 34,664,600 to 46,909,600 civilian deaths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties). So whether it be from the atomic bomb, or conventional bombing, civilians would have been killed either way.

 

[Praxis]

From a purely military standpoint I would not put my men at risk when there is a much safer solution, let alone all the troops who would have died invading Japan (we estimated it at what, half a million American losses).

From a purely anything standpoint, all sorts of things which we consider immoral become the proper response.

From a purely logical perspective, Hitler did everything right for his country, restoring them to prosperity, refocusing the blame on a target the population could rally against, and sacrificing a small majority that were unneeded to the country's economy to restore it.

From an economic, mathematical, and political perspective, Hitler made all of the right decisions. His decisions are only wrong from a morality perspective.


Food for thought: on paper, healthcare for elderly is a terrible idea. It promotes overpopulation, hurts the economy as money is being put into people who are unable to provide any benefits. In fact, ceasing to provide healthcare once the population reaches a certain age is a fantastic short-term solution to overpopulation. Similar statements can be made for disabled people, especially mental handicaps.

Yet...would anyone really advocate that?

 

[SwastikaPyle]

How coincidental that there was actually a military commander who actually did look at it purely from a military point of view.

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.


Not to mention Douglas MacArthur -


MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

 

[Pink Reaper]

From a purely logical perspective, Hitler did everything right for his country, restoring them to prosperity, refocusing the blame on a target the population could rally against, and sacrificing a small majority that were unneeded to the country's economy to restore it.

From an economic, mathematical, and political perspective, Hitler made all of the right decisions.

This is 100% completely wrong. Like, the fact that you even slightly believe this to be true is sad.

Germany's Economy was not restored under Hitler. Sure it didnt get worse but it was kind of at rock bottom so that's pretty much impossible anyways. There's also the "War" thing. War is bad for an economy.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

War is bad for an economy.

wat


edit: it appears you are correct. http://economics.about.com/cs/issues/l/aa032003c.htm

edit 2: one more thing I had to 'unlearn.'

 

[Sucumbio]

I have to agree with rvkevin's assessment here, the US was technically acting in 'self-defense' in that Japan threw the first punch with the bombing of pearl harbor, and we threw the last punch.

also for those of you who at all doubt the casualties would not have been way higher if we'd not dropped the bombs:

"... the Japanese surrender, preventing massive casualties on both sides in the planned invasion of Kyushu [which] was to be invaded in October 1945 and Honsho five months later. "

The estimated casualites were independently verified, both by the Potsdam commission AND by later historians, lol. The bombs had to be dropped. The first one -should- have been enough, but the Japanese Council refused to surrender without specifically FOUR terms or conditions:

-the preservation of the Kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity)
-assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization
-no occupation of the Japanese Home Islands, Korea, or Formosa
-delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government.

GIVE ME A F'ING BREAK!!!

After ALL the crap Japan had pulled in the torture and killing of millions, you really think America was going to accept a surrender that

1.) Left the ruling party in power
2.) Allowed the ruling party to disarm itself (yeah sure they wouldn't have stashed all those weapons somewhere, lol)
3.) Been fine in not keeping a close eye on things or even a far eye... just watch from abroad...
4.) Let THEM punish THEMSELVES for their war crimes.

Yeah, the second bomb was as necessary as the first. Obviously.

OP: Not bad, swastikapyle, your premise is actually quite right, however I sympathize with the partial readership's initial (and perhaps continuing) confusion on your stance, as it does read more like a "Hitler wasn't bad, he's just misunderstood." This would make a great essay in any publication but I'd suggest some editing during your transitions from the Jewish Holocaust to the Atom bombings to 9/11 ... I felt your enthusiasm throughout and your veracity can tend to lead your reader to believe your connections are more than poignant observation (as in you implying responsibility on parties where its not really meant to be).

As such I'd submit that to learn from history is to react. But we still have trouble in this area because normally by the time you have something to react TO, it's too late. The US has tried for decades to prevent mini-Hitlers from rising by putting their OWN hitlers into power, and it's a double-edged sword (as we saw with Saddam Hussein). Not until US foreign policy is reduced to strictly response-based initiatives will our resources truly go towards that end. Meanwhile, there's a very strong push recently to new organizational methods for world foreign policy, leading towards a single commonality. There's no way this will work so long as the US and other leading nations insist on fronting their agendas through body-shield like nations (like Israel)...

Though some would argue that THIS administration is the first one in decades to look at Israel as nothing special, unlike the previous administrations. Considering them as "just another dirty rag-head nation" may turn out to go a long way in the negotiating process when it comes down to that oil. Something the next world war may very well be fought over.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I think it needs to be stated that the Japanese in WWII were not very nice people. That in and of itself is not a justification for the nukes, but alot of these posts paint Tojo's Japan as some sort of tragic victim. It's called "the **** of Nanking" for a reason.

 

[Sucumbio]

I think it needs to be stated that the Japanese in WWII were not very nice people. That in and of itself is not a justification for the nukes, but alot of these posts paint Tojo's Japan as some sort of tragic victim. It's called "the **** of Nanking" for a reason.

Word, Japan definitely committed serious war crimes the likes of which Hitler may have even taken notes on. Its funny but whenever we play Axis and Allies if -I- play the Axis, they WIN. Cause Germany had a sick head start, UK's almost always toast, the Russia has to fight on 2 fronts, which is why they waited so long to even declare war on Japan in the actual war, and someone here mentioned the treaty which was quickly coming around the same time as the atomic attacks. By the time the US can even get truly involved in either theater it's normally too late, though thanks to some serious *** kicking in the Africa and the infamous invasion at Normandy, the US was able to rout Germany... but the fight against Japan WASN'T nearly as great as some posters in here think, Japan was far from defeat, and the US had already sustained insane casualties (Wake Island, Midway, etc.)

I wonder, can we really sit on high and judge the men of history for their decisions? Put yourself in their shoes. We did NOT want the war to go on for another 1-3 years... we often think of the US as this Wellington's Blucher, but that's just not true. The US sat neatly by, letting EU get ripped to ****, letting China get ripped to ****, it wasn't until we really got stung that we reached to scratch, not unlike WWI actually, where we were late players. In both conflicts we did seem to ride to the rescue, fully charged and ready to kick butt, but... as you can see, endurance is hard for ANY war participant, eventually your supplies wane, your citizens lose faith in your vision, your soldiers die and reinforcements lessen with each battle. War is costly, and it is terrible, and if anything, the atom bombs did their job. They stopped the war.

For those unfortunate souls that bore the brunt of the actual atomic destruction and its lasting effects, of this I can only say: sucks to be them. I'd never wish it on anyone, and it really blows that it had to happen. But it had to happen, and their deaths, their miserable after-lives... were not in vain.

Anyone ever see Barefoot Gen? F'ing depressing. Really illustrates well just how crappy it was to be there. Apparently there's a sequel... >.>

 

[kpm91]

Hitler had many life problems that helped shape his behaviour. For example, he was impotent, which I'm sure would upset any man. Also, while he was still in Vienna, he got rejected from art school. There's no telling how history would have turned out had Hitler been happily painting pictures of meadows and mountains.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Hitler had many life problems that helped shape his behaviour. For example, he was impotent, which I'm sure would upset any man. Also, while he was still in Vienna, he got rejected from art school. There's no telling how history would have turned out had Hitler been happily painting pictures of meadows and mountains.

He probably would have grown a large afro and starred on a tv show.

 

[thesage]

There were two attack by the Japanese on US soil actually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands_Campaign

I understand that Hitler had a reason which made him feel justified to do what he did, but that doesn't make him any less crazy or evil. If I felt justified in killing 2,000 people for no reason, wouldn't I be called evil? I guess we should all feel sorry for Pol Pot then lol...

While I don't think the US should've invaded Iraq, saying that the US is profiting from Iraq oil is pretty stupid. Most Iraqi oil contracts went to foreign companies.

Dropping the atomic bombs weren't saintly things to do, but these were the options the US had pretty much:

Blockade Japan - spend resources fighting off any resistance and continue bombing them to make sure that they don't rebuild their factories/armies/weapons. This would also mess up the economy of both the US and Japan. This would've lasted several years.

Invade Japan - http://www.operationolympic.com/p1_casualties.php

Atomic bomb - we're discussing this now.

We also have to consider what would've happened if Russia helped conquer Japan. What would've happened in Germany, might have happened in Japan again.

The Atomic bombs were used because in the long term it saved more American AND Japanese lives. Conservative estimates of Operation Olympic put the Japanese death toll at more than twice the amount than those killed in atomic bombs. Out of all the options America had, it cost the least amount of lives, resources, and time. IMO it was the best decision.

Also anybody who believes that the USSR would have accepted any of the peace negotiations needs to read about what happened to Romania in World War II and afterwards lol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Michael's_Coup

ON WWII potential outcomes, had germany waited just a bit longer to completely conquer europe and neuter the UK, they totally could've have taken on Russia. The reason Russia was so successful towards the end of the war was because they started receiving supplies from the US and was able to equip their soldiers with guns instead of just throwing them onto the front lines as meatshields. Also Stalingrad. That was very stupid, crazy, egotistical, and evil thing Hitler did there. Stalin also wasn't very nice but that's another thing since we're talking about Hitler now.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

If you guys really think you know better than the general who fought the war for us, that's your own opinion and you are perfectly entitled to it.

lol at this blog getting 130 replies in a day.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Self-defense is offensive in nature. When a police officer shoots a suspect in self-defense, the act of shooting him is an offensive maneuver. It doesn't change the fact that it was self-defense. However, one could argue that the reaction was out of proportion, but if 12-7 was the reason for entering the war, any action thereafter could be called self-defense.

I definitely do not agree with that. (Non corrupt) police officers do not shoot suspects unless they are in immediate danger. There was nothing in Hiroshima that would have caused immediate damage to the United States.

In response to your last sentence, I also disagree. That's like saying that if I punch you in the face and then two months later you shoot me in the chest, it's self defense. I think we both know that that doesn't make sense.

I don't think morality exists in the mind. Nor do I think morality pertains to a characteristic of an individual.

Then where does it exist? And what does it pertain to if it isn't the individual?

I don't see how anyone could think that morality wasn't subjective. It changes from person to person, depending on their personal experiences and the way they view the world. That's the gist of the definition of subjective.

 

[Teran]

Although I like to make cracks at America nuking Japan, I still personally don't see much wrong with it.

It was war, and as some stated the Americans even said they were in possession of such a weapon. Real war is nothing but a childhish game of kill as many as you can until the enemy surrenders. There is no such thing as humanity in war, the whole concept of that is contradictory. You don't build millions of guns and bombs to sit down and have a nice discussion, you build them to kill people until they give up.

This is why the war in Iraq has been such a disaster. The grounds for the invasion were shaky so they couldn't just go in and blam blam blow the **** out of anything and everything as is standard fare in a real war.

Hitler is nothing more than example of what happens when the wrong person comes to power. You know as much as people give him the stick for being the most evil man in history, he could only have got that title because of the power he obtained. There are so many people that I believe would do so much worse if they were in power. When you get to that level of power, fear, greed for more power, and a desensitising occur. Tell your men to go out and kill a bunch of people. You don't see it, you're pretty much out the picture excpept for pulling the strings.

You know this is one thing I'm sure of, I bet pretty much everyone alive would push a button that killed say 100 people (they wouldn't see it), in return for $100,000,000. People say they wouldn't because they know it's a scenario that would take place, however when we see similar sorts of scenarios actually take place, you'll see how willing even the most decent seeming person is.

Which basically adds up to the fact that humans are fundamentally greedy and power hungry and criticising one man in history constantly is not fair if we're not willing to learn from his mistakes. What made Hitler bad so to speak wasn't even killing Jews, it was his detached, sociopathic, greedy, and power hungry nature.

That could happen to a lot of you. Power is a poison.

 

[sandwhale]

So annoying I had to leave, i missed so many posts...I'll just answer this one as it responds to me.

I now understand.

Evil is subjective, therefore it's okay for me to go out and brutally **** and murder some people. Don't worry, I'll have reasons. Just stop to consider my point of view, and you'll realize that it's a little more acceptable.

Hey, you could even write about it and maybe get a 10/10 for being interesting!


But in all seriousness, yes, Hitler had reasons. He even had good intentions. He wanted what he felt was best for his country, and for the world. We all already understand that he had his own point of view. However, that doesn't mean it's okay to try to use his point of view to justify or lessen the horrible things he did.

If all you're trying to do is tell us that Hitler had his reasons, you are wasting your time, we already know this.

Go **** and murder people if you want. The thing is people don't want to be ***** or murdered. Thus they have gathered and created laws that forbid such actions and with the power they have gained by joining forces they can apply that law and severely punish those that violate it. There is no moral, there is merely fear and power. Though having a moral hides the feeling that your hiding your pulsions for fear of the majority and convinces yourself that your doing it for your personal beliefs.

Hitler is considered evil because he violated the fundamental rules that we vaste majority consider necessary to our own well being.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Go **** and murder people if you want. The thing is people don't want to be ***** or murdered.

Going to sig this totally out of context.

 

[rvkevin]

I definitely do not agree with that. (Non corrupt) police officers do not shoot suspects unless they are in immediate danger. There was nothing in Hiroshima that would have caused immediate damage to the United States.

So being at war with another country doesn't necessarily mean that they will plan to attack you? I'm sorry, but that's the nature of war. If you are at war with another country, its reasonable to expect being attacked.

Then where does it exist? And what does it pertain to if it isn't the individual.

It is an abstract construct. It pertains to moral agents.

I don't see how anyone could think that morality wasn't subjective. It changes from person to person, depending on their personal experiences and the way they view the world. That's the gist of the definition of subjective.

I don't think our experiences change morality, just the application of it. And just because two people differ in answer on the subject does not mean that there is not an objective answer.

 

[sandwhale]

Going to sig this totally out of context.

I'm torn between the displeasure of looking stupid and the honor of being sig'd.

 

[saviorslegacy]

I am Christian... IMO there is only black and white.
Final Biblical conclusion:
humans= bad
God= Good
humans= thinks they are good
God= *laughs*, you'll get yours <,<

 

[~automatic]

Good read (really good) but like some people posted this is just another PoV. Another opinion or PoV doesn't make war/genocide any less of an atrocious act. Hiroshima and 9/11 don't actually tie in to this (other than people dying) but that's just my opinion.

In the end the ordeals Hitler put the world through could have been a hissy fit that Hitler threw because he didn't get into the Vienna art school he wanted to attend. You never know right?

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Since we are all discussing how intense the Japanese zealotry is, I decided to download Letters from Iwo Jima. This might be the most intense film I've seen since the new millenium started.



*SPOILERS*

Spoiler

Rather than face death at the hands of the Americans, a group of *** soldiers choose honorable suicide, detonating themselves one by one by hugging grenades to their chest

*end spoilers*


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDsIMbhDJ7k <-----one of the craziest ****ing things I've ever seen, no lie

 

[Handorin]

Not that I care, but it's kinda easy to see that black font using this forum skin. You should use the

Spoiler

tags.

 

[Melomaniacal]

So annoying I had to leave, i missed so many posts...I'll just answer this one as it responds to me.



Go **** and murder people if you want. The thing is people don't want to be ***** or murdered. Thus they have gathered and created laws that forbid such actions and with the power they have gained by joining forces they can apply that law and severely punish those that violate it. There is no moral, there is merely fear and power. Though having a moral hides the feeling that your hiding your pulsions for fear of the majority and convinces yourself that your doing it for your personal beliefs.

Hitler is considered evil because he violated the fundamental rules that we vaste majority consider necessary to our own well being.

Wait... are you arguing that no one has morals and we only act a certain way because of the laws set before us?

So... yes or no, if **** and murder were legal, you would feel fine about ****** and murdering someone.

 

[jivegamer]

I don't think our experiences change morality, just the application of it. And just because two people differ in answer on the subject does not mean that there is not an objective answer.

You've been reading a lot of Plato, haven't you?

I think I understand your OP more now, Swastika. Thanks for clearing it all up.

 

[DanGR]

The word evil is defined somewhere along the lines of whatever society finds to be immoral, unless you practice a religion, in which case evil is whatever defies your religious principles, I suppose.

Immoral: not conforming to accepted standards of morality.
Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

What decides those standards and principles? How does society decide what is good and bad, right and wrong?

To be realistic, I think if you don't have any religious affiliation, good is pretty much whatever you... want, and bad is what you... don't want. Maybe you have the perspective that the human race is in this together, and that any harm to human beings is immoral. Or maybe you're just concerned about your own nation, and that any harm to it is bad, to you. Whatever it is, it's very likely you were raised and indoctrinated in school and at home to believe it.



Anyways, Hitler viewed Jews as the evil ones. In his eyes he was doing the right thing. I can at least appreciate him standing up adamantly for what he believed in, even if it I think it was "wrong".

 

[Jam Stunna]

Anyways, Hitler viewed Jews as the evil ones. In his eyes he was doing the right thing. I can at least appreciate him standing up adamantly for what he believed in, even if it I think it was "wrong".

What do you "appreciate?" That he carried through his beliefs to a war that killed tens of millions of people? That he set up the machinery to systematically exterminate entire groups of peole? You "appreciate" his dedication to ideas that led to those things?

My problem with this thread, and with exercizes like this in general, is that it leads to absurd statements like that. And the whole thing smacks of the worst kind of moral relativism. We can argue about the morality of premarital sex or cheating on your taxes, but there are some things in this world that are unqualifiably wrong. Genocide is one of those things, and it's literally unbelievable that someone can "appreciate" a person for carrying out his twisted hatred on the largest scale imaginable.

 

[DanGR]

I appreciate exactly was I said I appreciated: him standing up for his views- instead of backing down and doing nothing like many, if not most Americans do for theirs- nothing more and nothing less.

If that wasn't clear enough, here: I appreciate the act of standing up for one's beliefs.

Is that so difficult to reason with?
It wasn't my intention to justify genocide.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I appreciate exactly was I said I appreciated: him standing up for his views- instead of backing down and doing nothing like many, if not most Americans do for theirs- nothing more and nothing less. Is that so difficult to reason with?

It wasn't my intention to justify genocide.

That's incredibly difficult to reason with. You're saying you appreciate him for carrying out his belief that Jews, gypsies, homosexuals etc. should be exterminated. How is that not an endorsement for genocide?

 

[Skler]

What do you "appreciate?" That he carried through his beliefs to a war that killed tens of millions of people? That he set up the machinery to systematically exterminate entire groups of peole? You "appreciate" his dedication to ideas that led to those things?

My problem with this thread, and with exercizes like this in general, is that it leads to absurd statements like that. And the whole thing smacks of the worst kind of moral relativism. We can argue about the morality of premarital sex or cheating on your taxes, but there are some things in this world that are unqualifiably wrong. Genocide is one of those things, and it's literally unbelievable that someone can "appreciate" a person for carrying out his twisted hatred on the largest scale imaginable.

Jam Stunna lays down the law. I hate it when people think they're being smart/creative by saying something controversial.

 

[john!]

I see where DanGR is coming from, and he has a point.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I see where DanGR is coming from, and he has a point.

I get what he's saying, but you can't support someone for acting on their beliefs when their beliefs are clearly, unequivocably, and universally wrong.

Or is belief in a cause the only justification that's needed?

 

[Mewter]

He wasn't endorsing genocide, he was just saying he admires it when people in general have the guts to stand up for what they believe in. He doesn't like what Hitler did at all, though (and neither do I.)
Ninja'd

 

[Jack Kieser]

I love this thread. Really I do. The OP is a good look at the other side, and it's full of people who refuse to accept that there's no such thing as objective right/wrong or good/evil, so I never run out of people to lololol at.

You know what's bad about killing millions of people? It makes the human gene pool smaller. We care about human life, and I'd personally never condone or accept genocide... but that's mainly because I don't want genocide to be performed on me. It's self-serving. It's what you'd call the "moral" choice (genocide = bad), but it's what I call "covering my own ***".

Riddle me this: if 1 million people die today, does the sun not come up tomorrow? How about 10 mil? 100 mil? All of Asia? How about all of Asia and all of Europe? At what point does the "universe" care about human life? At what point does the universe punish humanity for genocide?

Face it: the universe doesn't care. Hitler's folly is irrelevant to anything that's not human. It's not intrinsically bad, or wrong, or evil. Because there is NOTHING objective to use to measure what is bad, or wrong, or evil. Do I like what he did? Hell no. But there's plenty of **** I don't like about human history (Christians, statistically, have killed WAY more than Hitler ever did in all of their Crusades, Holy Wars, persecutions, Inquisitions, and countless other "crimes against humanity"); doesn't mean that it's intrinsically "evil", though.

It just means that I don't agree with it. And if I don't want it to happen again, I have two choices: become world dictator and forcefully stop it from happening, or understand why it happened and try to prevent others from repeating history.

EDIT as to not waste a post: So, yeah. I posted this from work, like an idiot, just as I'm getting off my shift to drive to Houston. So... yeah. I guess I can be back later?

 

[john!]

^ But it's clearly unequivocally and universally wrong! Because I said so!

Spoiler

Seriously though, nice post.

I might blog about this in the future if I have time.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Riddle me this: if 1 million people die today, does the sun not come up tomorrow? How about 10 mil? 100 mil? All of Asia? How about all of Asia and all of Europe? At what point does the "universe" care about human life? At what point does the universe punish humanity for genocide?

Face it: the universe doesn't care. Hitler's folly is irrelevant to anything that's not human. It's not intrinsically bad, or wrong, or evil. Because there is NOTHING objective to use to measure what is bad, or wrong, or evil.

This is exactly why it's more important that we care about things like good and evil. If there's no cosmic sense of justice (and I agree that there isn't), it becomes all the more important that we have our own clearly defined and absolute sense of what is good and what is bad.

Morality is not supposed to define our relationship to the universe, it defines our relationship to each other. It really doesn't matter if we're important to the stars; we're important to other humans, and that's far more valuable than any amount of cosmic signifigance. Morality (and law) regulate that most important relationship, of one human being to another.

Besides, there are moral absolutes. Murder has ALWAYS been wrong. The only thing that has really changed is what constitutes murder. You don't think that if one German citizen murdered another in the Third Reich there weren't consequences (which is one of the reasons that Jews had their citizenship revoked)? If you want to debate about the relative definition of murder, that's a debate worth having. But to debate that murder itself is a matter of moral relativism flies in the face of all of human history.

 

[john!]

Besides, there are moral absolutes. Murder has ALWAYS been wrong.

Suppose someone had murdered Hitler in 1930. Would that have been right or wrong?

 

[Jim Morrison]

Hitler was very aware he was attempting to exterminate jews, gays, black people, basically anyone not caucasian. Him standing up for his belief that that was the right thing should not be commendable. No matter what your believes are, anyone can reason that murdering a person is wrong (if not in extreme self-defense for you nit-pickers ), therefor he did not do the right thing.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Suppose someone had murdered Hitler in 1930. Would that have been right or wrong?

Yes it's wrong. What had Hitler done in 1930 that would justify his murder?

Now, if you rephrase the question to, "Supppose someone had murdered Hitler in 1944," now you have a more interesting topic, because then you can legitimately ask the question, was it murder? Germany is at war, so killing Hitler under certain circumstances is no longer murder.

I am not saying that all killing is absolutely wrong. There have been legal and moral precidents throughout time that recognize that all acts of taking life are not equal. What I am saying is that all people have defined certain kinds of killing as murder, and that those acts defined as such have always been wrong.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Jam, Jam, Jam... there has never been moral absolutes. Murder happens every day in the animal kingdom. Be a gorilla, and just try to **** with your respective Silverback. There are only two outcomes:

* You kill him, assert your dominance, and your word is now law.
* He rams it so far up your *** that you wish you were a female gorilla so that, maybe, you could at least possibly like it like that. Then you die.

Murder is commonplace. We murder insects. We murder cows. We murder viruses. We murder criminals. Murder is everywhere. And don't trick yourself into thinking that murder isn't murder if it's justifiable; murdering a cow because you need food is still murder. You're still killing something.

We don't need "clearly defined and absolute [senses] of what is good and what is bad"; we need clearly defined and absolute senses of what is helpful and what is not helpful to our continued dominance, survival, and existence, and a flexible and understood way to re-evaluate those conditions when we realize that our definitions are outdated and need updating or changing.

Labeling things as "concretely good" or "concretely bad" is dogma. It forces you expressly not to question the rationale, to understand. It dooms you to being a sheep. Was Hitler wrong? Irrelevant. Was Hitler justified? Now that's a question that helps us define ourselves and our society in a constructive way.

Now, stop distracting me from packing; it's wrong to do that.