People we see as "evil", are we being ignorant of their brilliance?
- Thread starter cyber_andyy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You're right.Sgt.Looney said:
And I can't debate this subject without seeming like a hippie-style lover of all beings, I know that, and my apologies.
But if you do not condemn acts of vicious murder as "Evil", then there's something wrong with you.
I MUST STRESS that I do not say that Hitlers beliefs are bad/evil, and you can debate that good/evil are in the eyes of the beholder in that case(his ideals) all you want, but if you do not see ACTUAL BUTCHERING OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE as "Evil", then there's something terribly wrong with you, wouldn't you agree?
Sure Hitler had some "Good" ideas, and he did what he did because he believed it would make German a better place to be, that doesn't mean that his murdering of people are as good as why he does it.
Murder is bad, murder is evil, period. The reason that one kills may vary, one might have "Good" intentions, that still doesn't make the murder "Good".
Have you read "Mein Kampf"?
(And me talking about my German family in my original post was merely to underline that I am most likely much closer to this issue than any of you Americans, it was to stress the fact that I - probably - know more about this issue than the people reading my post. It was ethos, to make it known that I have ground to speak about the subject, as I rarely get involved in a serious debate in matters of which I have no prior knowledge.)
What this comes down to is whether or not Good/Evil, and morality in general, are universal.
Morality is the opinion of the norm, if you live in a society where the majority thinks murder is fine, then those that do not thinks so, are the outsiders, and the killers aren't evil, but murder is merely a means to an end.
BUT IN A WORLDWIDE perspective, I claim that good/evil are universal. The majority of the people of this planet believes murder to be evil, that makes murder evil.
I ask you, as an individual, of your opinion, a rhetorical question: The answer is given.
Do you not condemn murder? rape? Are these not vile and cruel acts?
No, laws are the voice of the masses. If a law was passed that the majority of the people disliked, let's say a law that enabled the government to take money from people, just like that, then the government would be wise to retract the law, if they didn't want to get overthrown.GenHellspawn said:
People are just not that stupid anymore, parties elected to government(Or people to president) can only pass laws and regulations within a certain spectre.
You don't see a person in office wanted to reinvent slavery? Or a person in office wanting to make murder legal?
If all blacks/yellows/reds were shipped from America, and all "Social Liberals" of the US were deported to France, then the masses would have another opinion, and as such there would be other laws.
The is proved by the fact that not all countries in the world have to same laws, because the opinion of the people varies, but in general people have the same morality.
If people weren't inheritly good, why is murder illigal? (A bit off-topic for you, but this is about the "Universal Morality question")
If laws were meant to control countries, we would have fascism all over the place, mind you.
And stop avoiding my posts, If you aren't reading them fully, then stop writing me - and if you can't manage to give me something to work with, stop writing me as well.
You kindergarten debating is making me grow a long beard out of frustration, at least discuss the subject with me, give examples, give me something. Being brief is fine, but this is ridiculous.
Evil is subjective. Whether someone is evil or not depends on your perspective. Hitler was a great speaker, but he did decide to murder a lot of people. A lot of leaders can be construed as evil.
I heard Russia is actually considering putting Stalin in their Great Leaders Museum. I'm wondering if they were crazy, he was truly an evil, evil man.
Are we still talking about hitler? i m too lazy to read the entire thread up until this post.
What about Marx, Lenin, etc. etc. and the people we think of as evil because of the cold war? They helped russia out a lot, and even after they did what they did, the people regarded them as heros
What about Marx, Lenin, etc. etc. and the people we think of as evil because of the cold war? They helped russia out a lot, and even after they did what they did, the people regarded them as heros
I'm definately going to have to put my weight on the side of 'evil is subjective'. Absolutely subjective 
It should be obvious that there are borders accross cultures which cause disagreement about morality. To suggest a few.
The debate about torture
The debate about abortion
The war on drugs, terror
Pretty much *any* war - is it ever justifiable?
And there is no doubt that in different places and different times what would be regarded as morally repugnant has changed. It used to be fine for a man to rape his wife - hell it's STILL perfectly acceptable in some cultures and the woman would be shunned for not fullfilling her duty. The fact that I'm dating someone of a different race would be considered absolutely evil not too long ago and lord knows I have friends in other interracial relationships who've had their parents in tears telling them that they've abandoned their faith, or are a traitor to their race! Slavery, racism, rape and hate have all been regarded as perfectly acceptable, even REQUIRED from time to time. When the killing of another person is justifiable has changed immensely as well - my country of australia tried to wipe out our indigenous folk - it was considered the good thing to do.
So yes, I am willing to argue there are no moral absolutes. When you appeal to things such as rape and murder as proof that there are absolutes all you are really saying is that it's an opinion *currently* held by so many people in the vicinity that you wont find somebody to defend them. Or perhaps you are even appealing to the fact that they are CURRENTLY so morally reprehensible that nobody will be willing to tarnish themselves by suggesting they are not absolutely wrong.
But you can't kid yourself that these things don't change. In the bible, god all but wipes out humanity - and you will find plenty of people willing to defend that action. The media is full of crackpots suggesting women bring rape on themselves and it's not so long ago or too far away to find societies where that is considered truth. Child molestation is seen by many as a disease. And read any left wing or right wing blog to find plenty of people calling each other evil for the most *bizarre* reasons.
The lesson we should all take from these talented, evil leaders is not that we are different and therefore better than those societies - but that we should always question our values and beliefs, in case we end up regretting them as we mature.
It should be obvious that there are borders accross cultures which cause disagreement about morality. To suggest a few.
The debate about torture
The debate about abortion
The war on drugs, terror
Pretty much *any* war - is it ever justifiable?
And there is no doubt that in different places and different times what would be regarded as morally repugnant has changed. It used to be fine for a man to rape his wife - hell it's STILL perfectly acceptable in some cultures and the woman would be shunned for not fullfilling her duty. The fact that I'm dating someone of a different race would be considered absolutely evil not too long ago and lord knows I have friends in other interracial relationships who've had their parents in tears telling them that they've abandoned their faith, or are a traitor to their race! Slavery, racism, rape and hate have all been regarded as perfectly acceptable, even REQUIRED from time to time. When the killing of another person is justifiable has changed immensely as well - my country of australia tried to wipe out our indigenous folk - it was considered the good thing to do.
So yes, I am willing to argue there are no moral absolutes. When you appeal to things such as rape and murder as proof that there are absolutes all you are really saying is that it's an opinion *currently* held by so many people in the vicinity that you wont find somebody to defend them. Or perhaps you are even appealing to the fact that they are CURRENTLY so morally reprehensible that nobody will be willing to tarnish themselves by suggesting they are not absolutely wrong.
But you can't kid yourself that these things don't change. In the bible, god all but wipes out humanity - and you will find plenty of people willing to defend that action. The media is full of crackpots suggesting women bring rape on themselves and it's not so long ago or too far away to find societies where that is considered truth. Child molestation is seen by many as a disease. And read any left wing or right wing blog to find plenty of people calling each other evil for the most *bizarre* reasons.
The lesson we should all take from these talented, evil leaders is not that we are different and therefore better than those societies - but that we should always question our values and beliefs, in case we end up regretting them as we mature.
There is no true "evil" because nobody in their right mind ever chooses to be completely hateful and malevolent just for the sake of cruelty. There's always another motive or reason. Sometimes it's mental illness, but often the "evil" person is just misguided and completely firm in their belief that what they are doing is the right thing to do.
Hitler didn't just decide one day to be history's figurehead for evil. He did everything with strong convictions that it was right, and would help Germany.
Hitler didn't just decide one day to be history's figurehead for evil. He did everything with strong convictions that it was right, and would help Germany.
1: That's what I was alluding to when I said that it keeps people in line. If everybody went off murdering each other, nobody would want to live there. They realize that laws keep the "bad" criminals in the minority, and as such provides a place for the "good" people to live.s0denone said:
2: No I don't, but if I did I would not dismiss their opinions. If their argument for reinstating slavery or making murder legal made enough sense, I wouldn't let petty morality blind me.
3: I don't really get what you're trying to say here, could you elaborate a bit?
4: Nobody is inherently good. In fact, from the minute you are born, you are not innocent. I know this sounds crazy, but think about it.
5: Laws aren't meant to control countries, they're meant to control people living in those countries. They aren't made under some illusion that the laws are "good", they are simply meant to keep the majority of the populace happy and productive.
By the way, I took out some of your points because those were the ones I wanted to address, not to take anything out of context.
I think he actually despised that particular son, can't remember why. I suppose he was meant to be a great comrade of the people it would have probably looked weak if he had made the trade. He was supposed to be the 'tough guy'. Hence the horrible cynicism of his remark on his son's suicide. I'm not condoning it, but it doesn't surprise me that much. Saddam Hussain was like Stalin in many ways, and he went much further actually having his sons killed out of paranoia.corporate_gamer said:
No, what sickened me most about Stalin was in a book I read about the Soviet propoganda machine and it had a print of a poster of him posing with a mother with her daughter sat on his lap, in a sort of happy smiling family portrait. It said that he later had the mother shot after the propaganda picture because he became paranoid that she was a spy. I don't think there was any reason other than his raging paranoia, but perhaps he took her as a mistress for a short while I don't know. It seemed that everyone he ever was close with he eventually became suspicious of and had 'removed'.
I would say that Hitler was a raging madman, and Stalin was a cynical paranoid b*stard. They both got madder as they got older. I wouldn't say either were evil in a supernatural way. What separates them from the everyday meanness and cynicism out there is they were in circumstances where they were able to get people to listen to them and enveigle their way into positions of power to give their obsession and whims free reign.
The b*stards got organised.
The b*stards got organised.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MachievelliAce of Spades said:
I felt this was needed.
Lawful=organization, order
Good= selfless
Chaotic=free-will, disorganization
evil= selfish
Neutral=a balance
In your situation, you are committing an evil act in defence of your life, against an evil act.Typhusoid said:
This was Lews Therin, telling you that morality exists, most people just ignore it.
Hitler at least knew how to spell ignorant.
But no, what kind of idiot jackassery is suggesting that we are ignorant of Hitler's brilliance. Rallying a nation to imprison, torture, enslave, and kill an entire religious culture is not genius, I think the fact that it lead to his ultimate destruction and universal hatred of his ideals in less than thirty years we can safely conclude that it was really fucking stupid.
It is also hugely disrespectful to the people who suffered through Hitler's regime, and people who still suffer today because of his actions to suggest there is hidden brilliance in Hitler, which is why you don't do it.
Crap like this, this is the reason I don't play WWII styled games. These type of games dilute the reality and lessons of a truly horrible event and turn it into something "fun". And goofs like our OP come up with cool ideas like how brilliant the cruel or insane is.
That Hussein guy, wasn't he awesome? If only people gave him a chance. Slavery, man the U.S. wouldn't be in the economic situation it's in right now if it just kept to its guns and kept on trading black folk about like they were yugi-oh cards... Doesn't sound so nice when you put it that way does it?
If these madmen were truly brilliant, they would be able to make their differences on the world without the suffering and death of thousands (millions!) of other human beings, and that is the ultimate point anyone with ideas worth anything would make on the subject.
You should be ashamed of yourself, andy, and I am not backing off from that, it is not OK and I'm not about to sugar coat it, you have gone so far as to seriously say "Hitler had some good ideas, it was just the execution that was a little off"
Well, I'm sure there are a ton of Neo-Nazis that would agree with you. Hang out with them and don't post here if you're going to follow that train of thought.
But no, what kind of idiot jackassery is suggesting that we are ignorant of Hitler's brilliance. Rallying a nation to imprison, torture, enslave, and kill an entire religious culture is not genius, I think the fact that it lead to his ultimate destruction and universal hatred of his ideals in less than thirty years we can safely conclude that it was really fucking stupid.
It is also hugely disrespectful to the people who suffered through Hitler's regime, and people who still suffer today because of his actions to suggest there is hidden brilliance in Hitler, which is why you don't do it.
Crap like this, this is the reason I don't play WWII styled games. These type of games dilute the reality and lessons of a truly horrible event and turn it into something "fun". And goofs like our OP come up with cool ideas like how brilliant the cruel or insane is.
That Hussein guy, wasn't he awesome? If only people gave him a chance. Slavery, man the U.S. wouldn't be in the economic situation it's in right now if it just kept to its guns and kept on trading black folk about like they were yugi-oh cards... Doesn't sound so nice when you put it that way does it?
If these madmen were truly brilliant, they would be able to make their differences on the world without the suffering and death of thousands (millions!) of other human beings, and that is the ultimate point anyone with ideas worth anything would make on the subject.
You should be ashamed of yourself, andy, and I am not backing off from that, it is not OK and I'm not about to sugar coat it, you have gone so far as to seriously say "Hitler had some good ideas, it was just the execution that was a little off"
Well, I'm sure there are a ton of Neo-Nazis that would agree with you. Hang out with them and don't post here if you're going to follow that train of thought.
Of course Adolf was a smart, powerful person. If only he had the right morals. I'm not one to preach my morals to others but if u think its right to burn jews then i think u need to re-evaluate ur perspectives.
Are you sure that there is that much of a difference here? Are you certain that doing an evil act for the greater good doesn't besmirch the good brought on by it?Kevvers said:
I was simply laying down an example for us all to work with, so we're all on the same page here.
