• For our 10th anniversary on May 9th, 2024, we will be giving out 15 GB of free, off-shore, DMCA-resistant file storage per user, and very possibly, public video hosting! For more details, check a look at our roadmap here.

    Welcome to the edge of the civilized internet! All our official content can be found here. If you have any questions, try our FAQ here or see our video on why this site exists at all!

What makes you better than Hitler?

Arnox

Master
Staff member
Founder
Messages
5,288
Houseman said:
Signa said:
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.

Arnox said:
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?
Look, I don't think you're saying you're a Nazi here, so if you're trying to make a point here with all this, just make it. We'll save each other a lot of time.
 

infinityshock

Disciple
Messages
331
Arnox said:
Houseman said:
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.
looks like you paid attention in juden-shill school.

selfishly wanted to expand.

racism.

youre the victim, here. a victim of the kike propaganda machine.
 

Houseman

Zealot
Sanctuary legend
Messages
1,068
Arnox said:
Look, I don't think you're saying you're a Nazi here, so if you're trying to make a point here with all this, just make it. We'll save each other a lot of time.
My point is that your definition of good and bad, morality, is not workable. Which is surprising coming from you, a Mormon. Were you holding on to your trump-card[nb]I wonder if the use of this phrase will change in a post-Trump world...[/nb] the whole time by not appealing to God as the source of morals? Is that not what you believe?

Regardless, your definition is not sufficiently rigorous enough in order to draw a distinction between Hitler and yourself. If one believes that morality is objective, that what is bad is always bad when looked at by any angle, from the future or the past, then one should have a well-defined metric in place.

If one believes in subjective morality, where what is bad can be viewed as good from a certain perspective, then it follows that there is no true difference between the morals of Hitler and the morals of one's self; it's all a matter of perspective.

My point is not the destination, but the journey, the shared realization of the solution to a problem. I have introduced to us a problem, and was interested to see if we might be able to solve it together. This was merely the road that I was inclined go down, but not the only road I was willing to travel.

infinityshock said:
Arnox said:
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.
looks like you paid attention in juden-shill school.

selfishly wanted to expand.

racism.

youre the victim, here. a victim of the kike propaganda machine.
This guy gets it.
 

Signa

Libertarian Contrarian
Sanctuary legend
Messages
764
Houseman said:
Arnox said:
Look, I don't think you're saying you're a Nazi here, so if you're trying to make a point here with all this, just make it. We'll save each other a lot of time.
My point is that your definition of good and bad, morality, is not workable. Which is surprising coming from you, a Mormon. Were you holding on to your trump-card[nb]I wonder if the use of this phrase will change in a post-Trump world...[/nb] the whole time by not appealing to God as the source of morals? Is that not what you believe?
Was this your angle the whole time? The Dennis Prager argument?

I think if that's where you're going with this, that's fine for most people. Most people aren't actually capable of defining their principles, let alone living by them. They need that higher power to say what is objectively right and wrong, because the higher power is the ultimate good, and everything that is further from that good is progressively more evil.

The problem with the question then is "what makes you better than Hitler," because you made it personal by asking it that way. I know I'm capable of a lot of self reflection, more so than most. I know I'm better than Hitler because I actually thought about myself in a way that lets me improve myself and minimize harm to others. Not everyone can say that honestly, but I honestly believe it about myself. I don't need a god defining what is the best good in the world because I'm being the best good I can be and am achieving it rather well. There other other criticisms you could level at me, but none would put me in the same place as Hitler.
 

Arnox

Master
Staff member
Founder
Messages
5,288
Houseman said:
If one believes that morality is objective, that what is bad is always bad when looked at by any angle


I believe in objective morality in that I believe that in certain situations, there are actions that are just plain better than others in terms of overall survival and happiness. Just because your perspective changes doesn't mean the optimal action for a given situation changes. But the optimal action DOES change when the situation changes.
 

Houseman

Zealot
Sanctuary legend
Messages
1,068
Signa said:
Was this your angle the whole time? The Dennis Prager argument?
I don't know what "The Dennis Prager argument" is, not even after googling it.

I think if that's where you're going with this, that's fine for most people. Most people aren't actually capable of defining their principles, let alone living by them. They need that higher power to say what is objectively right and wrong, because the higher power is the ultimate good, and everything that is further from that good is progressively more evil.

The problem with the question then is "what makes you better than Hitler," because you made it personal by asking it that way.
My intention was to make it personal.
I know I'm capable of a lot of self reflection, more so than most. I know I'm better than Hitler because I actually thought about myself in a way that lets me improve myself and minimize harm to others. Not everyone can say that honestly, but I honestly believe it about myself. I don't need a god defining what is the best good in the world because I'm being the best good I can be and am achieving it rather well. There other other criticisms you could level at me, but none would put me in the same place as Hitler.
Maybe Hitler did a lot of self-reflection as well. Maybe he sought to improve himself and minimize harm to others, and the slaughter of millions was the way he found.


Arnox said:
Houseman said:
If one believes that morality is objective, that what is bad is always bad when looked at by any angle
I believe in objective morality in that I believe that in certain situations, there are actions that are just plain better than others in terms of overall survival and happiness. Just because your perspective changes doesn't mean the optimal action for a given situation changes. But the optimal action DOES change when the situation changes.
That's fine, but as you've demonstrated, your definition of what good and bad is has some holes in it.
I'm also still curious as to what you believe regarding God setting the standard for morality.
 

Signa

Libertarian Contrarian
Sanctuary legend
Messages
764
I'm at work so I can't 100% confirm i found the right one, but this was the video I was referencing. I don't think Dennis is wrong, per se, but it's a very religious - centric view that only applies to the people that can't think for themselves.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/yrcQ_PTkVD4[/youtube]

Also, if Hitler did self reflect, he has about 6 million Jews to tell him he came up with the wrong answer, I've got what, 6 forum users to tell me I'm wrong? Just the fact I'm not in power or seeking power is enough to separate me and him.
 

SupahEwok

Can't Stop the 'Wok
Messages
44
Oops, I accidentally ran over a Jew on the way home from the store. Guess I'm not better than Hitler after all, guys.

Oh wait, I have both testicles. So I still have one up from ol' Dolphy. Phew, that was close! Guess I can go out and murder as many Jews as I want.
 

Houseman

Zealot
Sanctuary legend
Messages
1,068
Signa said:
I'm at work so I can't 100% confirm i found the right one, but this was the video I was referencing. I don't think Dennis is wrong, per se, but it's a very religious - centric view that only applies to the people that can't think for themselves.
Sure, you can think for yourself. You can come up with your own idea of what is good and bad. So can someone else. They can kill you, thinking themselves good, and you can die, thinking them bad. Who says either is right, or even MORE right? That's my point, nobody does. Nobody can. It's just vanilla and chocolate. Taste. Opinion. It changes with the times, not toward any sort of goal or end. We're all just specks relative to the universe.

What do you think?
 

Signa

Libertarian Contrarian
Sanctuary legend
Messages
764
Houseman said:
Signa said:
I'm at work so I can't 100% confirm i found the right one, but this was the video I was referencing. I don't think Dennis is wrong, per se, but it's a very religious - centric view that only applies to the people that can't think for themselves.
Sure, you can think for yourself. You can come up with your own idea of what is good and bad. So can someone else. They can kill you, thinking themselves good, and you can die, thinking them bad. Who says either is right, or even MORE right? That's my point, nobody does. Nobody can. It's just vanilla and chocolate. Taste. Opinion. It changes with the times, not toward any sort of goal or end. We're all just specks relative to the universe.

What do you think?
I think when I analyze my own behavior, I extrapolate it to the rest of my civilization. Am I hurting anyone? No? Good, but if literally everyone did it, does it hurt still? Yes? Ok, then it's not good. If everyone was killing because I thought this one kill was just or righteous, then it's not OK to kill that one person. A flow chart that short is all it takes for me to not need God to be the defining factor on why I should or should not kill someone. It's simple and short enough that a lot of people could use it.

The question is if you can see the harm when you or everyone else does it. That's what free speech and discussions like this are for.
 

Arnox

Master
Staff member
Founder
Messages
5,288
Houseman said:
That's fine, but as you've demonstrated, your definition of what good and bad is has some holes in it.
I'm also still curious as to what you believe regarding God setting the standard for morality.
You're confusing my terms of bad and morally bad. Bad is just undesirable. Whether it's morally right or wrong doesn't matter. Morally bad means what I said above.

God shows us the standard. It's a standard that's existed and will exist literally forever. An unchanging law.
 

Samtemdo8

Devotee
Messages
120
I have not and will not bring about the slaughter of 100+ Million people, soliders and civilians, so by default I am better then Hitler

/thread.
 

infinityshock

Disciple
Messages
331
Samtemdo8 said:
I have not and will not bring about the slaughter of 100+ Million people, soliders and civilians, so by default I am better then Hitler

/thread.
because you never have and never will have the power and authority he did. you lack the ability to empathize.

you lack the qualifications to make any such statement.
 

Houseman

Zealot
Sanctuary legend
Messages
1,068
Signa said:
I think when I analyze my own behavior, I extrapolate it to the rest of my civilization. Am I hurting anyone? No? Good, but if literally everyone did it, does it hurt still? Yes? Ok, then it's not good.
There's what word again: Harm. Are we talking long-term harm or short-term harm? Are we talking about a painful visit to the dentist, or executing a criminal? Harm for the individual or harm for the society?
If everyone was killing because I thought this one kill was just or righteous, then it's not OK to kill that one person. A flow chart that short is all it takes for me to not need God to be the defining factor on why I should or should not kill someone. It's simple and short enough that a lot of people could use it.
Does this flowchart scale, though? Say that you're a judge or the leader of a country. Say that you have the power of capital punishment in your hands. Do you think, "Should I execute this criminal? Well what if everyone went around executing criminals? Would that cause harm?" Maybe you'd be against executing criminals.

But let's say it's not even about executing criminals, how about just locking them up? Would you say "What is everyone went around putting people in cages for not following the law?" Would you be against the notion of jail, too? I find that hard to believe.

But do you have to qualify that hypothetical question with all of the circumstances, such as your position, your power, the criminal's specific crimes, etc? Would your flowchart question, "If every head of state put criminals, as defined by [CITE LAW], in jail, where [CITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF CRIMINAL] would it cause harm?"

If so, then you can't really apply that flowchart when evaluating anybody else's actions. You can't judge someone else's actions unless you first list out all the extenuating circumstances, so in that case, it would be fairly useless.


Arnox said:
You're confusing my terms of bad and morally bad. Bad is just undesirable. Whether it's morally right or wrong doesn't matter. Morally bad means what I said above.

God shows us the standard. It's a standard that's existed and will exist literally forever. An unchanging law.
Oh, I thought it was clear that we were always talking about morals here.
 

Signa

Libertarian Contrarian
Sanctuary legend
Messages
764
Houseman said:
Signa said:
I think when I analyze my own behavior, I extrapolate it to the rest of my civilization. Am I hurting anyone? No? Good, but if literally everyone did it, does it hurt still? Yes? Ok, then it's not good.
There's what word again: Harm. Are we talking long-term harm or short-term harm? Are we talking about a painful visit to the dentist, or executing a criminal? Harm for the individual or harm for the society?
Harm that is unsustainable for the individual or community. You can call flicking someone's ear harm, and if everyone did it, that person would still be alive, and probably would have their ear and health. However, tossing a beer bottle in the woods doesn't do much, but if everyone did it, you'd have a big ass pile of bottles, and the woods wouldn't really be the woods anymore.
If everyone was killing because I thought this one kill was just or righteous, then it's not OK to kill that one person. A flow chart that short is all it takes for me to not need God to be the defining factor on why I should or should not kill someone. It's simple and short enough that a lot of people could use it.
Does this flowchart scale, though? Say that you're a judge or the leader of a country. Say that you have the power of capital punishment in your hands. Do you think, "Should I execute this criminal? Well what if everyone went around executing criminals? Would that cause harm?" Maybe you'd be against executing criminals.
What are their crimes? Just because they are criminals doesn't mean they get executed.
But let's say it's not even about executing criminals, how about just locking them up? Would you say "What is everyone went around putting people in cages for not following the law?" Would you be against the notion of jail, too? I find that hard to believe.
What are their crimes, not everyone goes to jail just because they are criminals

You keep going to the justice system for examples of harm, but it's not for common citizens to execute justice. We granted the government that right, so that they can remain impartial. We still control the government so they don't take that power and abuse it, but we do not have vigilante justice for a reason. It's a fringe case and doesn't apply to this discussion of defining harm. Because of our system, vigilante justice is already considered harmful, as it can execute the wrong people, and it breaks the integrity of the current rule of law.
But do you have to qualify that hypothetical question with all of the circumstances, such as your position, your power, the criminal's specific crimes, etc? Would your flowchart question, "If every head of state put criminals, as defined by [CITE LAW], in jail, where [CITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF CRIMINAL] would it cause harm?"

If so, then you can't really apply that flowchart when evaluating anybody else's actions. You can't judge someone else's actions unless you first list out all the extenuating circumstances, so in that case, it would be fairly useless.
That again is for the courts to decide, and not part of the flowchart system.
 

Houseman

Zealot
Sanctuary legend
Messages
1,068
Signa said:
You keep going to the justice system for examples of harm, but it's not for common citizens to execute justice. We granted the government that right, so that they can remain impartial. We still control the government so they don't take that power and abuse it, but we do not have vigilante justice for a reason. It's a fringe case and doesn't apply to this discussion of defining harm. Because of our system, vigilante justice is already considered harmful, as it can execute the wrong people, and it breaks the integrity of the current rule of law.
I think we're good on the definition of harm for now, now we're just looking at the implementation to see if it still makes sense.
But now we have different rules for different people. Judges can morally do things that it would be immoral for a normal citizen to do. Hitler, as a dictator, has the powers of a judge, so he should be justified in carrying out what he considers to be justice, right? You say it's a fringe case. You say the flowchart does not apply here. I say your flowchart doesn't work at scale.

That again is for the courts to decide, and not part of the flowchart system.
Do the courts decide morality? Can the courts give an unjust decision? Can laws be unjust? If you follow an unjust law, does that make you moral or immoral?
 

andersonnnunes

Disciple
Messages
326
Evolution being blind implies that lineages only ever strive towards local optima in regard to the fitness landscape of all possible gene combinations. Global optima, where reaching them would require foresight or planning, are thus not to be expected as a result of evolution.

(source)

What makes anyone better than an ant or cockroach?

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Wild guess: something, having global optima as goal, something, having foresight/planning, something, not being utterly corrupted in the middle of the path.[/font]
 
Top