And doing those things would make one a "worse" person? Why?SupahEwok said: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.
It's up to you. Or SupahEwokArnox said:What's your definition of "worse"?
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.Houseman said:And doing those things would make one a "worse" person? Why?
The Secretary of Defense here is a Jehovah's Witness. I'm Mormon. lolSupahEwok said: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.SupahEwok said: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.
So Hitler caused suffering and loss of life. What about this makes him "worse" than someone who hasn't done these things?Arnox said: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.
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 said:So Hitler caused suffering and loss of life. What about this makes him "worse" than someone who hasn't done these things?
Interesting, I never knew he was a vegetarian.Signa said:I'm not a soyboy vegetarian like he was.
He's worse because he did those things, and because he did those things, that makes him worse? Isn't that circular logic?Arnox said: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.
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.Houseman said:Interesting, I never knew he was a vegetarian.Signa said:I'm not a soyboy vegetarian like he was.
He's worse because he did those things, and because he did those things, that makes him worse? Isn't that circular logic?Arnox said: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.
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.Houseman said: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?
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?Signa said:So here's the deal. Pain and suffering is objectively bad because no one likes going through it.
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?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.
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?"The net negativity he created can be measured by lives lost
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?Arnox said: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.
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?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.
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"Houseman said: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?Signa said:So here's the deal. Pain and suffering is objectively bad because no one likes going through it.
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.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?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.
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?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?"The net negativity he created can be measured by lives lost
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.Houseman said: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?
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.Houseman said: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 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.Signa said: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"Houseman said: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 rightLives 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?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?"
Also, false equivalence. A country's history can not be compared to one man's influence.
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.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 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.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.
Great, now we have a definition of bad.Arnox said: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.Houseman said: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?
So people suffered and died, which is bad. But it was actually good that this badness happened. This seems inconsistent.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.
Ooooooooh, burn!Monoochrom said:And I was accepted into Art School.
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 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.
I like this answer. Good for you.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.
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.Arnox said:Except people were suffering and dying under Hitler because he selfishly wanted to expand.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.
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.Furthermore, racism.
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?Also, times were different then as compared to the Old Testament times where war was CONSTANT and people were suffering and dying everywhere anyway.