What makes you better than Hitler?

[Houseman]

Just curious.

 

[SupahEwok]

I haven't tried to fight a land war in Russia during winter. And I haven't burned any Jews in the last 30 days. Feeling pretty solid.

 

[Houseman]

I haven't tried to fight a land war in Russia during winter. And I haven't burned any Jews in the last 30 days. Feeling pretty solid.

And doing those things would make one a "worse" person? Why?

 

[Arnox]

What's your definition of "worse"?

 

[Houseman]

What's your definition of "worse"?

It's up to you. Or SupahEwok

 

[SupahEwok]

Is this gonna end with you trying to convert me to the Church of Mormon after you try to make the case that I'm really no better than the widely agreed Worst Person in History and the cure for that is Jesus? Cuz as I recall from the Escapist, that's how most threads you start semantics over ended.

 

[Arnox]

And doing those things would make one a "worse" person? Why?

Because his impact on the world made a LOT more people suffer and/or had their lives taken. Now he's not SOLEY responsible as there are still the people who carried his orders, but there you go.

There. I bit.

Is this gonna end with you trying to convert me to the Church of Mormon after you try to make the case that I'm really no better than the widely agreed Worst Person in History and the cure for that is Jesus? Cuz as I recall from the Escapist, that's how most threads you start semantics over ended.

The Secretary of Defense here is a Jehovah's Witness. I'm Mormon. lol

 

[SupahEwok]

I knew he was one or the other, and that Jehovah's Witness makes more sense with the proselytizing, but I thought he once stated that he was Mormon through and through.

My best friend back in early elementary school was a Mormon. Went to his baptism. Really nice, kind people.

 

[Houseman]

Is this gonna end with you trying to convert me to the Church of Mormon after you try to make the case that I'm really no better than the widely agreed Worst Person in History and the cure for that is Jesus? Cuz as I recall from the Escapist, that's how most threads you start semantics over ended.

Not unless you want it to.
And what Arnox said is true, I'm a JW, nor an LDS.
I can still try to convert you to Arnox's religion though. Hey, there's an idea for a thread...

Because his impact on the world made a LOT more people suffer and/or had their lives taken. Now he's not SOLEY responsible as there are still the people who carried his orders, but there you go.

So Hitler caused suffering and loss of life. What about this makes him "worse" than someone who hasn't done these things?

 

[Signa]

I'm not a soyboy vegetarian like he was.

 

[Arnox]

So Hitler caused suffering and loss of life. What about this makes him "worse" than someone who hasn't done these things?

I just told you. Through his actions, he caused mass suffering and death. Unless you LIKE pain and death, or at least pain and death caused to those people.

 

[Houseman]

I'm not a soyboy vegetarian like he was.

Interesting, I never knew he was a vegetarian.

I just told you. Through his actions, he caused mass suffering and death. Unless you LIKE pain and death, or at least pain and death caused to those people.

He's worse because he did those things, and because he did those things, that makes him worse? Isn't that circular logic?
If I were to say, "I'm good because I walk barefoot, and because I walk barefoot, I'm good", that wouldn't really mean anything would it? What is it specifically about walking barefoot that makes me good? What is it specifically about causing mass suffering and death that is bad? Didn't the God of the bible also cause mass suffering and death, or do you consider those parts to not be translated correctly? Surely you believe that God killed at least one person, right?

 

[Signa]

I'm not a soyboy vegetarian like he was.

Interesting, I never knew he was a vegetarian.

I just told you. Through his actions, he caused mass suffering and death. Unless you LIKE pain and death, or at least pain and death caused to those people.

He's worse because he did those things, and because he did those things, that makes him worse? Isn't that circular logic?
If I were to say, "I'm good because I walk barefoot, and because I walk barefoot, I'm good", that wouldn't really mean anything would it? What is it specifically about walking barefoot that makes me good? What is it specifically about causing mass suffering and death that is bad? Didn't the God of the bible also cause mass suffering and death, or do you consider those parts to not be translated correctly? Surely you believe that God killed at least one person, right?

So here's the deal. Pain and suffering is objectively bad because no one likes going through it. The more misery you cause, the more people have to experience something they don't like. You can get nihilistic about it and say that all of life is suffering, but no one seeks out suffering.

Hitler gave a lot of people something they didn't want, and ended the lives of people that were otherwise happy. So not only was he adding to suffering, he was removing happiness from the world. The net negativity he created can be measured by lives lost, and as long as no one has caused enough harm to measure against the lives lost under Hitler's rule, you can say you're a better person than Hitler.

 

[PointlessKnowledge]

I don't know how serious a response I should give to this, so:

I am not the cause of Charlie Chaplin's mustache style becoming unpopular.

 

[Arnox]

He's worse because he did those things, and because he did those things, that makes him worse? Isn't that circular logic?
If I were to say, "I'm good because I walk barefoot, and because I walk barefoot, I'm good", that wouldn't really mean anything would it? What is it specifically about walking barefoot that makes me good? What is it specifically about causing mass suffering and death that is bad? Didn't the God of the bible also cause mass suffering and death, or do you consider those parts to not be translated correctly? Surely you believe that God killed at least one person, right?

Don't give me this subjective bullshit. Take a knife right now and cut your hand off. Hurts, doesn't it? And oh look, you can't use your hand anymore. It's gone. You lost your hand now. That's OBJECTIVELY bad. Now imagine if an enemy did that to you. It's even worse because now you can't control it. You can't make it stop. This leads back into what I was talking about much earlier when we were talking about what really constitutes Hell, but let's not digress.

As to back then, this article explains things pretty darn well: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/07/i-have-a-question/how-can-i-reconcile-impressions-of-the-nature-of-god-from-the-old-and-new-testaments?lang=eng

Basically, it says two things. One, that the Israel of old was NOT at a very high spiritual level at all. It's because of this that they received the "lower" law instead of the "higher" law that we now know as the New Testament. They needed more strictness to keep them on the path. Hence the harsh policies. Secondly, because it was better for the people in other countries "to die, and thus be deprived of their agency, which they abused, than entail so much misery on their posterity, and bring ruin upon millions of unborn persons." The Lord (usually) prioritizes those who follow his commandments over those who do not for obvious reasons. Now that we have the higher law though, we don't have to follow the mosaic law anymore, thank goodness.

 

[Houseman]

So here's the deal. Pain and suffering is objectively bad because no one likes going through it.

Nobody likes going to the dentist, and that can even be painful, so should we call that objectively bad too? People suffer in jail, and nobody likes going there by design. Are jails objectively bad? Should we demolish jails and let criminals run free, then? Pain and suffering seems to be part and parcel with the maintenance of law, order, health, and society. Does the badness of pain also transfer over to the goodness it preserves?

Hitler gave a lot of people something they didn't want, and ended the lives of people that were otherwise happy. So not only was he adding to suffering, he was removing happiness from the world.

If you jail a criminal, he is no longer happy. Whose happiness matters most? Whose is worth preserving and creating, and whose is worth destroying?

The net negativity he created can be measured by lives lost

Like I said to Arnox, the God of the bible is said to have killed a whole lot of people, and yet, he is still written of as good. Are lives the only metric by which we measure badness? How many people has America killed, if we count all the Native Americans, the civil wars, the wars on foreign soil, the death sentences, the legally justified killings of the police, etc. I googled up some estimates, and the numbers range from 20 to 40 million. Would you be okay living in a country that's "Literally worse than Hitler?"

Don't give me this subjective bullshit. Take a knife right now and cut your hand off. Hurts, doesn't it? And oh look, you can't use your hand anymore. It's gone. You lost your hand now. That's OBJECTIVELY bad.

But why? You're just saying that things are bad without giving a reason. Sure it hurts, sure, I can do less, but how is this "bad"? I don't see the link. What makes "bad" things bad?

Now imagine if an enemy did that to you. It's even worse because now you can't control it. You can't make it stop. This leads back into what I was talking about much earlier when we were talking about what really constitutes Hell, but let's not digress.

As to back then, this article explains things pretty darn well: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/07/i-have-a-question/how-can-i-reconcile-impressions-of-the-nature-of-god-from-the-old-and-new-testaments?lang=eng

Basically, it says two things. One, that the Israel of old was NOT at a very high spiritual level at all. It's because of this that they received the "lower" law instead of the "higher" law that we now know as the New Testament. They needed more strictness to keep them on the path. Hence the harsh policies. Secondly, because it was better for the people in other countries "to die, and thus be deprived of their agency, which they abused, than entail so much misery on their posterity, and bring ruin upon millions of unborn persons." The Lord (usually) prioritizes those who follow his commandments over those who do not for obvious reasons. Now that we have the higher law though, we don't have to follow the mosaic law anymore, thank goodness.

So was the "lower" law bad, because it caused pain and suffering, or was it good because this relative amount of pain and suffering made things better in the long run?
If we don't want to do the "subjective" thing, we have to decide, right? Bad can't be bad in some situations, but good in other situations, because that would be subjective, right?

 

[Signa]

So here's the deal. Pain and suffering is objectively bad because no one likes going through it.

Nobody likes going to the dentist, and that can even be painful, so should we call that objectively bad too? People suffer in jail, and nobody likes going there by design. Are jails objectively bad? Should we demolish jails and let criminals run free, then? Pain and suffering seems to be part and parcel with the maintenance of law, order, health, and society. Does the badness of pain also transfer over to the goodness it preserves?

You're confusing sacrifice and malice. Dentist suck, but the sacrifice helps ensure your own longevity. Jails are objectively bad, but that's the point. You're not supposed to go to jail. In a sense though, it's also a sacrifice, but done in reverse. Instead of taking the reward after the volunteered pain, you're doing the pain after the "reward." I wouldn't call most crimes rewarding, but we all have to follow the rules, and if you're getting a "privilege" of living outside of those rules, then jail is the cost of that "freedom"

Hitler gave a lot of people something they didn't want, and ended the lives of people that were otherwise happy. So not only was he adding to suffering, he was removing happiness from the world.

If you jail a criminal, he is no longer happy. Whose happiness matters most? Whose is worth preserving and creating, and whose is worth destroying?

Generally, if you're taking away other's liberties, then you lose your own. Your happiness is forfeit when you infringe on other's rights to pursue happiness.

The net negativity he created can be measured by lives lost

Like I said to Arnox, the God of the bible is said to have killed a whole lot of people, and yet, he is still written of as good. Are lives the only metric by which we measure badness? How many people has America killed, if we count all the Native Americans, the civil wars, the wars on foreign soil, the death sentences, the legally justified killings of the police, etc. I googled up some estimates, and the numbers range from 20 to 40 million. Would you be okay living in a country that's "Literally worse than Hitler?"

Lives aren't the only metric, but it's an easy and quantifiable figure. I can say I'm 10 unhappy today, and 47 uncomfortable, but does that mean the same thing when someone else gives the same specs of their current state?

Also, false equivalence. A country's history can not be compared to one man's influence. And even if that wasn't the case, I still can't control my country's history. I can take part in it after I was born, and I can do my best to be as far from Hitler as possible, and get as many people around me to keep from being Hitler too. The fact you had to compare a country's bi-centennial death toll to one man goes to show how bad this one man was.

Careful not to push this contrarian point of view too much further. I enjoy the challenge of defining my accepted preconceptions, but it's going to become irksome if you make me repeat the obvious too much.

 

[Arnox]

But why? You're just saying that things are bad without giving a reason. Sure it hurts, sure, I can do less, but how is this "bad"? I don't see the link. What makes "bad" things bad?

Because the definition of bad is something undesirable. You don't desire it so it's undesirable. You can think something is bad when in fact it may be beneficial, and you can think of something as good when in fact it may be harmful. This is why there must be one sole truth to everything. If there isn't, then all is chaos and nothing really matters.

So was the "lower" law bad, because it caused pain and suffering, or was it good because this relative amount of pain and suffering made things better in the long run?
If we don't want to do the "subjective" thing, we have to decide, right? Bad can't be bad in some situations, but good in other situations, because that would be subjective, right?

It was good for the time because it kept Israel, God's people, on the path as much as possible. This is seen as desirable. Hence, it was good. At the time. Now it would be bad if it was applied now as its purpose has already been fulfilled.

 

[Kaleion]

I am better than everyone, including Hitler obviously.

But seriously, though in situations of crisis I'm able to remain calm and also take the initiative to help, this has helped during Earthquakes and fires, besides that just the fact that I haven't campaigned for anyone's genocide nor killed anyone I guess.

 

[Houseman]

Nobody likes going to the dentist, and that can even be painful, so should we call that objectively bad too? People suffer in jail, and nobody likes going there by design. Are jails objectively bad? Should we demolish jails and let criminals run free, then? Pain and suffering seems to be part and parcel with the maintenance of law, order, health, and society. Does the badness of pain also transfer over to the goodness it preserves?

You're confusing sacrifice and malice. Dentist suck, but the sacrifice helps ensure your own longevity. Jails are objectively bad, but that's the point. You're not supposed to go to jail. In a sense though, it's also a sacrifice, but done in reverse. Instead of taking the reward after the volunteered pain, you're doing the pain after the "reward." I wouldn't call most crimes rewarding, but we all have to follow the rules, and if you're getting a "privilege" of living outside of those rules, then jail is the cost of that "freedom"

It could be said that the Nazis operated on this same principle. They saw the Jews as living outside the rules, and so they were, to themselves, justified in forcibly removing them from their society. We all have to follow the rules right? From the Nazi perspective, if we view Germany as a living body, the Jews could be viewed as rotten teeth, so they were, in effect, going to the dentist to ensure their own longevity. America culls itself of criminals, to preserve its own longevity, in similar ways, except it jails them for life and uses them as slave labor instead of outright killing them.

Like I said to Arnox, the God of the bible is said to have killed a whole lot of people, and yet, he is still written of as good. Are lives the only metric by which we measure badness? How many people has America killed, if we count all the Native Americans, the civil wars, the wars on foreign soil, the death sentences, the legally justified killings of the police, etc. I googled up some estimates, and the numbers range from 20 to 40 million. Would you be okay living in a country that's "Literally worse than Hitler?"

Lives aren't the only metric, but it's an easy and quantifiable figure. I can say I'm 10 unhappy today, and 47 uncomfortable, but does that mean the same thing when someone else gives the same specs of their current state?

Also, false equivalence. A country's history can not be compared to one man's influence.

You're right

And even if that wasn't the case, I still can't control my country's history. I can take part in it after I was born, and I can do my best to be as far from Hitler as possible, and get as many people around me to keep from being Hitler too. The fact you had to compare a country's bi-centennial death toll to one man goes to show how bad this one man was.

I dunno, I'm still not convinced that bodycount == morality, given that people are killed for "good", even if you frame it as a sacrifice.

Careful not to push this contrarian point of view too much further. I enjoy the challenge of defining my accepted preconceptions, but it's going to become irksome if you make me repeat the obvious too much.

I hope I don't make you repeat yourself, and I do forget things on occasion, but I've yet to hear a consistent definition of "bad" by which we can evaluate Hitler. I've heard "because nobody likes it", but my rebuttal to that was that sometimes we have to go through things that we don't like for the "greater good", like going to the dentist.

But why? You're just saying that things are bad without giving a reason. Sure it hurts, sure, I can do less, but how is this "bad"? I don't see the link. What makes "bad" things bad?

Because the definition of bad is something undesirable. You don't desire it so it's undesirable. You can think something is bad when in fact it may be beneficial, and you can think of something as good when in fact it may be harmful. This is why there must be one sole truth to everything. If there isn't, then all is chaos and nothing really matters.

Great, now we have a definition of bad.

So going to jail is undesirable for a criminal, but the society desires it, because the society does not want criminals.

Or let's use the dentist example that I gave to Signa. In the short-term, I don't desire going to the dentist, because it's painful, annoying, uncomfortable, costly, etc. In the long-term, I enjoy having healthy teeth, and I might consider the inconvenience worth it. So what matters more, the short-term, or the long-term?

Or let's say that assassinating a political leader or killing some civil rights activist is bad for that person, or even the society, for the short-term, but good for the future of the society or country. Let's take JFK or MLK. Let's say that whoever killed those people saw the bigger picture, the long-term, determined that this needed to be done for the greater good. Were they right? What is the one sole truth here?

Does this definition work at scale, when you extend it out to look at the big picture? Can bad be good, in a sense?

It was good for the time because it kept Israel, God's people, on the path as much as possible. This is seen as desirable. Hence, it was good. At the time. Now it would be bad if it was applied now as its purpose has already been fulfilled.

So people suffered and died, which is bad. But it was actually good that this badness happened. This seems inconsistent.

So Hitler caused people to suffer and die, but this isn't necessarily bad, because as you've just admitted, sometimes people suffering and dying can be good. So now we're back at square one: How do we determine what Hitler did was bad? We can't say "he caused suffering and death", because sometimes that can be good, so something more than that is necessary.

If killing can be good, you can't say "Hitler was bad because he killed", because killing is not always bad.

 

[Monoochrom]

In contrast to Hitler, I am not hated around the Globe.

And I was accepted into Art School.

 

[Signa]

Alternate answer, taking a different approach. From more of a Catholic/original sin angle. Hitler was a human, as am i. Therefore, I'm not better than Hitler, because what made Hitler a famous monster also exists within me. However, my ability recognize that fact puts me on a different level than Hitler, and I'd argue it's a better place because I'm less likely to l repeat his mistakes.

 

[Chimpzy]

And I was accepted into Art School.

Ooooooooh, burn!

Well, I'm better than Hitler because I'm an ape and apes are awesome.

 

[Arnox]

So Hitler caused people to suffer and die, but this isn't necessarily bad, because as you've just admitted, sometimes people suffering and dying can be good. So now we're back at square one: How do we determine what Hitler did was bad? We can't say "he caused suffering and death", because sometimes that can be good, so something more than that is necessary.

If killing can be good, you can't say "Hitler was bad because he killed", because killing is not always bad.

Except people were suffering and dying under Hitler because he selfishly wanted to expand. Furthermore, racism. Also, times were different then as compared to the Old Testament times where war was CONSTANT and people were suffering and dying everywhere anyway.

 

[Houseman]

Alternate answer, taking a different approach. From more of a Catholic/original sin angle. Hitler was a human, as am i. Therefore, I'm not better than Hitler, because what made Hitler a famous monster also exists within me. However, my ability recognize that fact puts me on a different level than Hitler, and I'd argue it's a better place because I'm less likely to l repeat his mistakes.

I like this answer. Good for you.

So Hitler caused people to suffer and die, but this isn't necessarily bad, because as you've just admitted, sometimes people suffering and dying can be good. So now we're back at square one: How do we determine what Hitler did was bad? We can't say "he caused suffering and death", because sometimes that can be good, so something more than that is necessary.

If killing can be good, you can't say "Hitler was bad because he killed", because killing is not always bad.

Except people were suffering and dying under Hitler because he selfishly wanted to expand.

First off, I don't think I've ever heard a workable definition of "bad" from you, except "undesirable", which was countered with arguments that explain why something undesirable is sometimes good, such as going to the dentist. You have yet to respond to that argument.

To respond to your point:
Because HE wanted to expand? He alone? He was only thinking of himself and his own interests? He wasn't thinking of securing the existence of his people and a future for German children? He wasn't thinking of the destitute situation and insurmountable pit that Germany was cast into after the first World War, the same pit that the rest of the world looked into and said "Perhaps we shouldn't have dug it so deep"?

I don't think that's true, but let's say that it is. Is selfishness bad? Why?

What is the prime motivation for all humans? Self-preservation. To live. That is why we eat everyday, so that we can live. Unless you are a vegetarian, you kill animals so that you can eat. Unless you are a vegan, you trap and farm animals so that you can wear their fur and drink their milk.

If there are limited resources between two people, one does not willingly resign himself to death so that the other may live. There is a battle. A war, even. These wars over resources secure life and happiness for the men, women, and children of a community, at the expense of another community that did not have the strength to win. The exact methods and reasons may have changed over time, but war is a constant of humanity. To gain by the deprivation of another, that is human nature. That is the nature of any animal with the means to kill.

So why do we say that this is bad, that nature is wrong?

Furthermore, racism.

If the Native Americans had been a little more racist, perhaps they would not have been driven to near-extinction thanks to the foreign invaders who bulldozed over them in the name of civilization. I expect you to balk at this, but why is racism bad? Because the foundations of it are not true? If truth is good, and falsehood is bad, what is true, and what is false? Hitler killed millions. This is true. Is it good? You would say "no". But I am getting ahead of myself, I should wait for you to explain why racism is bad, and while you're at it, what "bad" is.

Also, times were different then as compared to the Old Testament times where war was CONSTANT and people were suffering and dying everywhere anyway.

If the times justify God, why do they not also justify Hitler? Is 1940 CE more distant to us than 1940 BCE? Is Hitler farther removed from us than Jehovah? If we can look upon God's situation and see reason in it, why can we not do so with Germany?