Ask Your Question today
OK, OK, I know this is a provocative question, but I'm genuinely wondering about this. It's obvious that Addie did a lot of evil to the world, but I think that he ACTUALLY believed he was doing something good. Aren't you only evil, when you KNOW you're doing something evil, but simply don't give a fuck? Could it be he was simply misguided?
I don't believe in evil. To be honest, even good and bad are kind of subjective as morals are fluid. What is accepted as good in one country, religion, or time in history may be seen to be bad otherwise.
But if we accept our locality as a referential frame and accept our current ideas of good and bad as being valid, then your point is whether someone can ever do bad if they "think" they are doing good.
Tricky question and I'm going to give you conflicting answers. I really need a blackboard for this (I want to draw a truth table) but I'll try and write it out. Let's say you've got two situations. One where someone knowingly does bad, and one where someone doesn't. Let's say each other situations have two outcomes. One where bad happens and one where it doesn't. That's four outcomes.
Want: Bad - Outcome: Bad
This is a person who set out to do bad things. It's what we'd characterise as evil. Did Hitler want to do bad things? Psychologically, I think he did want revenge against his father and this was subject of transference on an ungodly scale.
Want: Bad - Outcome: Good
This is someone who wants to do bad, but is either not very good at it or the circumstances prevent it. They wouldn't be classed as evil, but they are.
Want: Good - Outcome: Bad
A man who drives carefully but still hits and kills and child crossing the road. Is he evil? No, but a child has been killed. He'll be seen in a worse light than the previous example. Is that fair? No.
Want: Good - Outcome: Good
Not relevant to the post.
Brilliant reply!
Unfortunatly we still haven't established for 100% if Hitler really wanted to do bad things, but that's not your fault of course. We may never know.
I do disagree with you on one thing:
"What is accepted as good in one country, religion, or time in history may be seen to be bad otherwise."
Sure, morality changes, but I feel SOME things are wrong no matter wat timeframe or culture you place them in. Can you, for example, tell me of a time or a culture in which it was NOT wrong to torture a baby to death for fun?
Still, brilliant reply!
Wow, thank you. I agree with your points. I was careful to preface the Hitler thing with "I think". Two little words that can get you out of trouble. I agree with you that we don't truly know Hitler's motives. And as you say, may never.
You make a good point on bigger morals and the smaller ones do tend to be the most fluid. Bigger things (like torturing babies) are harder to imagine ever being different.
However, as strange as it sounds, the modern idea of protecting and nurturing babies didn't always exist. Even in Victorian times, children were seen as property and only of value when they could serve. Go back to medieval times and the church did indeed torture babies (amongst many others). It's not as prevalent as those who'd attack the church would have you believe but it did happen.
I kind of wish I'd thought about this before posting because it does make a great example for when people think they're doing ultimate good, but are actually doing bad. I couldn't think of a practical example and here it was all along!
"Go back to medieval times and the church did indeed torture babies"
Could you please elaborate? Do you mean high-pregnant women being burnt at the stake for instance?
I was thinking of the "trials by ordeal" where to prove someone innocent you subject them to something which will seriously harm them (if not kill them). If they are saved, then it is God's will and they are innocent. But if they die, they were guilty.
Everyone was subjected to this, babies included. A really horrible practice and not something that many people seem to know about these days.
"Everyone was subjected to this, babies included."
As horrible as that is, it wasn't done for fun and what I asked was: Can you, for example, tell me of a time or a culture in which it was NOT wrong to torture a baby to death FOR FUN?
So, I guess some morals (the bigger ones at least, such as torturing babies for fun) are timeless and limitless.
Still, the babies' suffering wouldn't have been any less unfortunately.
The road to Hell was paved with good intentions.
...and he was one of the biggest monsters this world has ever seen.
Technically, he fought for what he believed in. I can't say that I agree to some of the things he did, but a lot of other people have done things that many people did not agree with but that does not necessarily mean that they were evil. What is considered "good" and "bad" seems to mostly depend on the person and whose to say that the person isn't being bias? Also, chances are that none of us knew him personally. Is it accurately possible to gauge someone without knowing them personally?
Okay, so maybe Hitler himself didn't think he was evil, but let's look at it from an outside perspective. Like Frosties comment on wanting good and having a bad outcome, maybe that was Hitler's intention, but it isn't the same as Frosties example. What Hitler did was on purpose. He purposely sentenced hundreds of thousands of minorities to their death. From an outside perspective, it would be logical to conclude that if Hitler does evil, then he himself is evil. Then again, I don't really believe in good and evil, just creulty and unjust.
Though I hate the cunt - he did get into power legally due to the flawed designed of the Weimar political system.
Also he is noted to be the first government that implemented policies that discouraged smoking.
He was just about as evil as humanly possible. The only people arguably more evil are serial killers who do it just for fun. But people like that aren't nearly as dangerous because no one will follow them.
"Evil" is sort of a superstitious way to describe criminal behavior and intent.
The guy had fucked up ideas about how the world should be run. And he had a bunch of other, fucked up, powerful friends, who thought his ideas were brilliant and beneficial to their financial situations. Together they murdered millions of people based on their ancestral backgrounds.
He was malicious and depraved of a normal amount of human empathy, but he probably wanted to be loved just like everyone else does.
Genocide??? Oh no that's not evil we all just wake up one day and are like let's kill people!!! On the serious note though yeast hitler was an evil person.