Poll: Good or Evil?

[000Ronald]

Stalin was a paranoid psychopath who was afraid of being put in a wood chipper, so he killed anyone who didn't think Communism wasn't the coolest thing since curly fries.

On a completely unrelated note, I wrote the above as an answer on a history quiz. %100. Hoo yeah.

 

[PurpleRain]

Hitler NEVER had the greater good in mind, that was just his excuse. Although he did beleive in eugenics...

Hitler was all about the greater good. He saw Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc, as vermin to be destroyed so the 'better' people can rule the future.

 

[000Ronald]

Stalin was a paranoid psychopath who was afraid of being put in a wood chipper, so he killed anyone who didn't think Communism wasn't the cooles thing since curly fries.

On a completely unrelated note, I wrote the above as an answer on a history quiz. %100. Hoo yeah.

You must have had a history teacher with one great sense of humor.

Yeah, John was cool.

Back on subject (I'll assume we were discussing the nature of good and evil) Stephen King's Insomnia really speaks to the nature of good and evil. If a person has power, does it corrupt them? How will you know if it will? To be quite frank, ya don't know. Putting someone in a position of power is always a gamble, so you have to make sure you have enough checks and balances to control it.

Good doesn't lead to good, and evil doesn't lead to evil-things happen is all.

 

[Larenxis]

Like a shot of heroin, Larenxis breathes new life into the discussion.

Apparently heroin is no match for Hitler.

On my topic: I'd say that he's a super-villain, because I believe it is the choice to do good that's important, and I don't think the ends justifies the means.

On your topic: Nobody can really say what Hitler had in mind, as none of us are time traveling psychics (as far as I know), but I'd suspect that he had to hold some semblance of 'the greater good' in his mind to rationalize his actions, as perverted as that semblance was.

 

[000Ronald]

On my topic: I'd say that he's a super-villain, because I believe it is the choice to do good that's important, and I don't think the ends justifies the means.

On your topic: Nobody can really say what Hitler had in mind, as none of us are time traveling psychics (as far as I know), but I'd suspect that he had to hold some semblance of 'the greater good' in his mind to rationalize his actions, as perverted as that semblance was.

Perverson of idealism is a terrible thing; nothing good has come of it, whether it be the slaughter of Jews or the ostrization of immigrants (due to the efforts of the KKK). Of course, because he was mad, we can think that he thought he was doing the right thing; insane people are like that when they have power.

 

[Easykill]

Perversion of idealism is a terrible thing; nothing good has come of it, whether it be the slaughter of Jews or the ostrization of immigrants (due to the efforts of the KKK). Of course, because he was mad, we can think that he thought he was doing the right thing; insane people are like that when they have power.

This makes my post much easier, thanks. Now all I have to say is that it's always a gamble to give someone this much power, great good can come of it if they AREN'T psychopaths, but if they are, then you're screwed. I don't believe power corrupts, I think it just reveals what you already are, which is the entire point of this thread. The problem is, the people who want power will always be the people in power, and quite a few of those people are a little crazy. It's a gamble. In the initial topic, the do-gooders basically had to decide whether they could trust themselves not to end up like Hitler, at least that's the way I saw it. But this is trusting someone else, which I would prefer to avoid if possible. Sorry if this is a bit non-sensical, my headache never went away.

 

[John Galt]

I see Hitler as a prominent example of how altruism can be used as a front for bigotry and hate. He wanted a better germany, that is true, however, the better germany was his standard of one. He imposed his own standards on others without them being able to question him. In a sense he was like captain control, just with a secret police rather than a super power.

 

[Larenxis]

Governments today still don't let the public have a say. From Cheney saying it doesn't matter that over two thirds of Americans don't think the war in Iraq is worth fighting, to the Harper government ignoring that over 97% of Canadians think access to water should be a human right. Do you think they're doing it based on their perception of 'the greater good'?

 

[John Galt]

Who knows? A man's perception of something and what something may be are two completely different things. Maybe Cheney feels the war is for the best. Right now, it's his opinion that counts, not ours.

 

[Larenxis]

That's not democracy.

 

[Fire Daemon]

That's not democracy.

No but Democracy never really exists when the person who makes the choices for any country is only ever chosen every 4 years.

 

[John Galt]

That's not democracy.

Precisely, that's why I've never trusted the government to listen to us. Hell, if the popular vote mattered, we'd never be in this situation.

 

[Larenxis]

Do you think the country (lets say the U.S.) would run well if everything was chosen by the majority? I know Scott Adams has suggested this. Where do you think ditching the 'representative' from 'representative democracy' would lead the country?

 

[Larenxis]

Hm... this gives me an idea.

 

[stompy]

I reckon that, if faced with no repercussions for my actions, I would do strive to achieve for myself, but without 'stepping on someone else's toes', so to speak, similar to Ayn Rand's philosophy.

But, I know, that given this opportunity, I will do anything and everything in my power to achieve what I wish. No-one can fool them self with utilitarianism, or for others. Deep-down, humans are selfish animals, whose first and foremost goal is to survive, no matter the cost.