Crystalite said:Children are born totaly devoid of any concept of morality. I don´t think anyone would question that. Without these concepts, they just do what is natural: Ensure their own survival.
This can come across as evil, becaus it is uncaring and selfish, but it can not be called that, because for someone to be that, they need a concept of what their doing.
A dog that bites you is not evil either, and babys are like animals in their behaviour.
When they grow some kind of morality, and continue to be assholes, yes, then they are obviously assholes ;-)
i like your logic, but hitler never had a "good reason", his father was jewish and his father was a major dick to him as a child, also his mother died in surgery and the doctor who preformed it just happend to be jewishTalshere said:UnwishedGunz said:by that logic your saying a murder could kill a defenceless child if he thought it was for the greater goodTalshere said:In this case, how can we know who is evil? History is littered with examples of war's, murder's and a like that have been carries out "for their own good", "to protect everyone else". Who are are we to decide if they are evil. Or anyone? They did what they believe best, and knowing how it would end, would do it again for the same reason.UnwishedGunz said:I believe that humans are born with a scale with both good and evil balanced at 50%, everytime that person does something good the balance shifts to the good side. when they do something bad the balance shifts to the evil side
when the person dies depending on the balance of their soul determins if they go to heaven or hell.
and stuff...
No I'm saying they are people who would murder a baby to prevent Hitler from ever coming to power. There people would kill a small child, who is innocent of anything, after all at this point he has done nothing wrong, and they would have done it "for the greater good" and tbh a lot of people would support them for it, while a lot of others would decry it as murder. My own opinions on killing Hitler as a child can be found elsewhere on these forums. But this however, is an example of being able to murder someone "for the greater good".
But even Hitler killed of the Jews for a "good reason" he just got carried away. At that time, the Jewish population held the majority of Germanys wealth, which during the great depression was a big deal. You kill the Jew and you give the German people 2 things they need, control over their wealth, as the government would seize assets, and someone to blame for their current state, something to focus the people, so that action could be taken, after all, disillusioned and depressed people rarely do anything to help themselves.
I've no doubt that Hitler did what he thought was necessary to help bring the German people confidence again, and drag them out of the depression, and to be fair to him, it worked. Germany were the first country out of depression. Had he won, no doubt in 200-400 years time, once the whole "suppressed nation" wore off, we would all believe this. After all, history is written by the victory.
Speculating as to his mental state and the potential reasons for his actions is a mute point as we can never know. The effect it had on the people of Germany however is obvious in hindsight and so we must assume that these reasons were part of the reason behind his actions even if not their whole reason. But I find it unlikely his targeting and removal of this group of people given the control and impact they had to be a lucky break. Hitler was paranoid, arguably mad, and possibly vindictive, but he was most certainly not stupid.UnwishedGunz said:snip
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you believe it's environmental factors that affect us then wouldn't that mean you were more a believer of nurture rather than nature?connall said:I did this in school. I think it is the nature vs nurture debate, I would side with nature we are neutral but our surroundings dictate how we become.
If that makes sense.
Me neither. Don't really believe in an old bearded guy in the sky either...Cheveyo said:What?HuntrRose said:So this guy getting himself nailed to some pieces of wood did it for the lulz?Cheveyo said:Yep, you need to teach a person to act civil.
You don't need to teach them to kill each other. That comes natural.
Some people simply never learn to be good. You can tell based on people's reactions to things.
Especially now-a-days. It's all selfishness and unaccountability for today's youth.
"Me me me" unless something is wrong, then it's everyone else's fault but their own. They never learn to take responsibility for their own actions and instead get taught the opposite.
Also, we're all going to hell. No matter how nice of a person you are, your soul is stained with sin. Simply being human causes that.
Oh, you mean the whole going to hell thing.
I don't believe he was God's child in the way Christians and Catholics do. However, I don't want to derail the thread too much. Suffice to say, you believe what you want, you have the right to that. Just don't expect everyone else to think the same.
Sorry, that's what I meant. I must have not been paying attention, will go correct it now.Kiefer13 said:'Good' and 'Evil' are such subjective terms, especially in a discussion like this. In any case, people are not born with any ideas about morality. We're neither intrinsically good or evil, though capable of becoming either.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you believe it's environmental factors that affect us then wouldn't that mean you were more a believer of nurture rather than nature?connall said:I did this in school. I think it is the nature vs nurture debate, I would side with nature we are neutral but our surroundings dictate how we become.
If that makes sense.