Considering the Hitler thing, it is quite possible that one of his victims, if they had not been murdered, would have become a tyrant equal to or more "evil" than Hitler himself. In this instance, Hitler murdering this person (or even many people including this person) could be seen as a good thing, given that it has prevented the possible evil of the future.
This is the problem with any ethical system. There are many ethical dilemmas you can have, the most common one is this:
There are 100 people on a train that is going to run off the tracks and crash, killing everyone. You can save the 100 by switching the train to another track, but there is an innocent baby on the tracks, and you haven't got the time to save it. What do you do?
Do you save the baby and let the 100 die, or do you "sacrifice the few to save the many" and kill the baby? Moral absolutists wouldn't be able to do either, and would leave the situation as unjustifiable. Ironically, leaving the situation (i.e. ignoring it and not doing any course of action) results in the deaths of 100 people, of which you could be said to hold the blame since you had the opportunity to do something but didn't. Moral relativists (or even nihilists like myself) would switch the tracks, killing the one to save the 100 on the train.
The second question is whether the ends always justify the means, such that if the end result is the most favorable, does it matter how we got to it, or even if we were planning on getting to it. What if Hitler's actions (though deplorable given he was acting on racial-cleansing alone) gave us the most favorable outcome. What if one (or many) of the victims would have become more tyrannical, and ended up causing more mayhem than Hitler himself? Surely then, Hitler's actions are more "good" than evil, given that the outcome we reached was the best one possible.
Just some things to consider
Morality isn't as black and white (or absolute/relative) as people seem to think it is.
This is the problem with any ethical system. There are many ethical dilemmas you can have, the most common one is this:
There are 100 people on a train that is going to run off the tracks and crash, killing everyone. You can save the 100 by switching the train to another track, but there is an innocent baby on the tracks, and you haven't got the time to save it. What do you do?
Do you save the baby and let the 100 die, or do you "sacrifice the few to save the many" and kill the baby? Moral absolutists wouldn't be able to do either, and would leave the situation as unjustifiable. Ironically, leaving the situation (i.e. ignoring it and not doing any course of action) results in the deaths of 100 people, of which you could be said to hold the blame since you had the opportunity to do something but didn't. Moral relativists (or even nihilists like myself) would switch the tracks, killing the one to save the 100 on the train.
The second question is whether the ends always justify the means, such that if the end result is the most favorable, does it matter how we got to it, or even if we were planning on getting to it. What if Hitler's actions (though deplorable given he was acting on racial-cleansing alone) gave us the most favorable outcome. What if one (or many) of the victims would have become more tyrannical, and ended up causing more mayhem than Hitler himself? Surely then, Hitler's actions are more "good" than evil, given that the outcome we reached was the best one possible.
Just some things to consider
Morality isn't as black and white (or absolute/relative) as people seem to think it is.
