Was Hitler objectively bad?

[KichigaiNeko]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_(god)

verrrry religious little fella our Hitler ...hmmm???

I don't think your poll will be answered solja.....silly poll anyway.

[Dotard]

Ask this question to the german populace in 1939.

[lucidproject44]

This is a delicate topic. What method are we using to define the very meaning of "good", and "bad"? It is my personal opinion that those definitions were created by a general consensus among people. We can't use religion, because religion is only a way of living, not anything else. When humans feel emotions, there is generally a label for the source of the emotions. I feel "happy" is a "good" thing, and I feel "sad" is a bad thing, (as is the general consensus among people). Humans have, over the course of so many years, set up "good" and "bad" to be what they are in the eyes of us today. This "good" and "bad" only exists because the government creates laws, and culture shapes personality types. So, there is not really a yes or no answer to your question, because "good" and "bad" are only social boundaries, and only exist in our eyes because we were taught them. there is no actual "good" or "bad". Human life is only as valuable as you make it/ perceive it to be. Hitler had the power required to kill the Jewish people, and he did it. So, in theory, Hitler's life was more valuable than the Jew's because he had the power to end their lives, and they did not have the power to end his. However, "importance" is a whole different topic that I won't go into detail here about.
To sum it up, the "right" answer to your question is the opinion held by the one with the power to strip you of yours.

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't believe morals are objective in the sense of absolute. I do believe morals are objective in the sense that there's an overall consensus of society of what is considered "right" and what is considered "wrong" (So like science in that sense, only less solid). And I am also, of course, perfectly entitled to my own views on what I consider right and wrong.

I don't believe Hitler was Evil simply because I don't believe in Evil at all in the sense of "moral evil" because I believe it to be incompatible to my non-subscribing to retributivism which is in turn due to both my non-belief in "free will" and my general contempt for "revenge". I believe that Evil is a concept, so I don't really believe it exists in itself just as I believe the concept of God and the Easter Bunny exist but I don't believe God itself or the Easter Bunny exist.

But if by "Do you believe Hitler was evil?" you mean "Do you personally think he did really horrible, horrible, horrible things that are so horrible it can't be overstated?" then my answer is "Yes". But I don't consider that "Evil" any more than I consider natural disasters to be "Evil". It's "Moral Evil" that I don't believe in.

I do have my own personal views on morality though. And in case you need to know it is at least more or less the following. I think that: In the long run the most suffering is bad and the least suffering is good. Minimization of suffering is priority. Only then does the maximization of pleasure become important. Individuals also only suffer individually so I don't believe 10,000 people suffering is in itself worse than 1 person suffering if it's an equal amount. It's simply that the likelihood of the suffering being greater the more people there are that suffer is what makes more people suffering worse than 1 person. In itself 1 person suffering an equal amount to many others is no worse than just one of them. Because as I said, people suffer individually.

I don't believe death in itself is that bad a thing because dead people don't experience anything as far as I'm concerned because I don't believe in an afterlife. I believe that people who are alive and want to live, naturally on the whole should be considered to have some sort of "right" but at the same time, I think that's only due to them wanting to go on giving pleasure to oneself and others or minimizing one's pain, and others'. In itself since I think that minimizing of suffering is priority I think that suffering is worse than death. But of course, since the desire to live and dislike of death can be stronger than the dislike of suffering that isn't absolutely torturous, that itself is taken into the "suffering" spectrum, so not dying (or rather, not wanting to) becomes part of the whole importance of minimizing suffering.

So, I believe my answer is not quite as simple as a "yes" or "No" or "don't know". And so I haven't voted.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Exactly, EvF. I don't believe that Hitler was bad in the same way as I believe that water is composed of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom. However, I would argue from my own moral presuppositions that Hitler was bad, and that we have to say he was bad, or that doing what he did is bad, otherwise society would fall apart, and we would have no way of dealing with conflicting interests in life.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well obviously I'd prefer if we all said he was bad. Sadly, even to this day, there will always be sympathizers and supporters of the most horrific people. And you can't make everyone think your way.

I think, thankfully, most of society isn't a Hitler supporter anyway.... people can think for themselves and we don't have to go around saying "Hitler is bad" in order to stop society falling apart. Society naturally holds together (if only barely!) by the moral Zeitgeist.

Besides, for those warped enough to be a supporter of Hitler, I doubt we'd be able to convince them otherwise.

[theVOID]

The answer to this question isn't a Yes or No, it's "Depends on what meta-ethical theory is correct"

If Desire Utilitarianism (the theory I support) or Divine command or Intrinsic value theory of morality is correct then he was "objectively bad", but if Moral Relativism or Moral Nihilism are correct then he was not.

Desire Utilitarianism is the meta ethical theory that is most consistent with reality, both in the sense that Desire's actually exist and can be demonstrated (unlike divine commands or intrinsic values), and it matches our general understanding of moral truths (unlike moral realism or nihilism). I guess based on that you are most justified in saying that he was "objectively bad".

EvF, you're the type who would be interested in Desire Utilitarianism, check out this interview with the proponent of the theory:

The interview
http://www.archive.org/download/Conversa...zoFyfe.mp3

Follow-up Questions
http://www.archive.org/download/Conversa...zoFyfe.mp3

[Edwardo Piet]

Desires exist and can be demonstrated. But how can you objectively say that they are what matter the most ethically?

[theVOID]

Essentially desires are the only things that inform action.

See the links, it's a lengthy topic, i posted them in Edit after you had responded

http://www.archive.org/download/Conversa...nzoFyfe.mp 3

http://www.archive.org/download/Conversa...nzoFyfe.mp 3

[Edwardo Piet]

I get "We’re sorry, the page you have requested is not available." for both links

EDIT: Oh.... I'm guessing that 3 on the end is supposed to be both of the link in both cases