Many lot of human emotions are when judging a situation, based on their assessment of mindset of the villain. But using that as a yardstick will leave society worse off. It is an instinct that does not scale to 8 billion humans. Doesn't even scale to the 10s of millions of humans.
If brutal honesty is not tolerated then people will just lie more. If Hitler had believed that this speech mattered (and he was probably correct that it did not) then he would have just said something different and had the same actions carried out.
The real problem is the people who, in public, only accept exactly what people claim verbally and either unwilling or unable to look at the incentives in play. We've had people just as bad mindset as Hitler in government - probably even in the major democracies. There isn't really an argument otherwise, we know the system favours amoral narcissistic sociopaths in high office. The checks on power and better incentives in a democracy matter far more than honesty or lies.
> If brutal honesty is not tolerated then people will just lie more.
If your honesty means being brutal, issue is you.
> If Hitler had believed that this speech mattered (and he was probably correct that it did not) then he would have just said something different and had the same actions carried out.
Hitler knew his speech mattered and that is literally how he became so powerful? He was literally the speaker of the party. He became party leader only after he established himself as a speaker whose speech matter. Also, what Hitler reiterated in that pre attack speech was what he wanted the troops to do and how he wanted them to act. He was talking about the destruction, because he thought his speech matter and destruction was what he wanted to achieve.
This has nothing to do with honesty being allowed or not - he literally threatens people with execution if they honestly disagree.
Now you're making a statement of statistics though. Not about definitions. And this I agree with. But saying it as a blanket statement is too much for my taste.
Children are often brutally honest. Because they literally don't know the other person will be hurt.
I meant exactly what I wrote. If your honesty consist entirely of negative things, then it is on you. And if you cant deliver criticism or negative things without being brutal, then it is on you. There is such a thing as honest compliment, for example.
And also, "brutal honesty" is fairly often euphemism for "exaggerated and emotionally laden claims". These things are not factually true nor honest, they are said and phrased for maximum negative impact.
> If your honesty consist entirely of negative things, then it is on you.
That was quite a leap you made there. You can be brutally honest and have positive things to say. In fact, positive things have higher positive impact to the recipient from such a person, since they know they aren't sugar coating.
'Brutal honesty' and 'not sugar coating the truth' are both lines used by emotionally immature people protecting their own values and ideals. Anything that needs to be said while being "brutally honest" can also be said honestly with compassion and empathy, but that takes a lot more self-awareness and emotional skill than just emotionally vomiting on someone else and calling it 'brutal honesty'.
Sure. But if you demand that only people with more self-awareness and emotional skill tell difficult truth then it gets really hard to figure out what is going on.
People with low social intelligence should be encouraged to be honest too. Honesty is not a virtue just for those gifted with high emotional intelligence. We all benefit if people play win-win games instead of social poker. Someone has to lose at that game.
The article assumes the ends never justify the means, and it seems to me fairly naive to have that position. Of course the means will justify the ends, if the ends are important enough. A police who shoots a knife wielding attacker in the leg is clearly a means that justify the ends for example. The only difference between that and Hitler is 1) the scale and 2) that Hitler was factually wrong about the universe.
Villains are heroes of their own story. This is something we must take to heart if we are ever to learn anything useful from history.
>The article assumes the ends never justify the means, and it seems to me fairly naive to have that position
It's pretty naive to assume that you and your family would be on the "enjoying the ends" side of the equation as opposed to the "sacrificed as means" side.
A lot of people, from Robespiere to USSR party officials found out the hard way.
Not to mention that the kind of types who opt "for the ends, the means be damned" seldom show much restraint.
Or the problem of who choses those ends, for whose benefit, and who did they ask?
>A police who shoots a knife wielding attacker in the leg is clearly a means that justify the ends for example. The only difference between that and Hitler is 1) the scale and 2) that Hitler was factually wrong about the universe.
No, the difference between that and Hitler is one of quality, not scale.
For starters, shooting the leg of 10 million people is not the same as executing 10 million people. Even as physical bodily damage is way less. I'd chose to be shot in the leg over being gassed any day of the week.
And it's even less "the same" if the ones who shot in the leg were knife wielding attackers and you did it to stop them, as opposed to them having done nothing.
As for being "factually wrong", Hitler could just as well be equally vicious while being factually correct. Saying "I know Jews are not pulling the strings, but I want to blame and exterminate them anyway because I want to use them as scapegoats" would be factually correct, yet the deeds would be no less evil.
I think what the GP was getting at is that they're both actions that are (in the mind of the person executing the action in question) necessary to achieve the desired effect. If you think that it is absolutely necessary to stop the knife-wielding attacker then you'll take any action necessary to do so. That shooting him in the leg was enough doesn't mean you wouldn't have gone further. If you think there's an international Jewish conspiracy that must be stopped you'll also take any action necessary to do so.
The difference in scale is, I think, irrelevant. Under no circumstances would someone need to kill millions of people to stop a single stabber. At that point you're arguing the analogy, not the argument.
>The difference in scale is, I think, irrelevant. Under no circumstances would someone need to kill millions of people to stop a single stabber. At that point you're arguing the analogy, not the argument.
The argument is made in the form of an analogy though. And what's more the parent insists that the main difference is "scale".
I don't think the main difference is scale. I think the difference is one is a legitimate action in defense, and the other is not.
That's objectively so, regarless of if Hitler believed in a conspiracy or not.
And even if he did legitimately believe in a Jewish conspiracy, still killing non-participating Jews (like babies and regular folk) would not be in defence even then, it would be proactive. One could legitimately believe a whole class of people are in a vast conspiracy, and still find killing them that way abhorent and not wanting to do it.
That would be like the cop killing a guy who thinks might attack someone with a knife in the future, or who thinks their kid will.
(b) The force used being proportionate to the danger
In that case John wasn't attacking anyone at the monent, so no defence. The 4 shots are also way disrpoportionate to the non-danger. And they came within 5 seconds of ordering to drop his knife, which again is not enough time to react (also assuming he could hear it).
In this case the shooting is more of an illegitimate action of offense.
Note that police doesn't just do actions for defence, but also e.g. to enforce some law. But the shooting, 4 times, lethally, of someone away from you, carrying a knife, within 5 seconds of you having told them to drop it, is not justified even under this context. At least it wouldn't be acceptable in any civilized country.
> As for being "factually wrong", Hitler could just as well be equally vicious while being factually correct. Saying "I know Jews are not pulling the strings, but I want to blame and exterminate them anyway because I want to use them as scapegoats" would be factually correct, yet the deeds would be no less evil.
That's a better point. One would have to dig deeper in order to find the factually incorrect idea in this scenario.
It's all about the goal. If the goal was to improve Germany this stance you cited would clearly make him again incorrect about the facts, as the extermination of the Jews hurt Germany.
If the goal was to gobble up power and riches for himself and his cronies, then he was factually incorrect about how powerful the allies were, as that clearly backfired pretty damn badly on him.
I don't see how you can get to any position where Hitler isn't monstrously wrong about something very fundamental. You can be as cynical as you'd like, but at the end he killed himself in a bunker. Clearly that was not his goal!
But even if Hitler hadn't underestimated the Soviet Union, or if exterminating the Jews had been an actual way to improve Germany, the Holocaust still would have been an evil act.
Most of the Jews the Nazis killed weren't from Germany. Hitler invaded other countries and then enacted the Holocaust in them (well, not just the Holocaust: Slavs were also a favorite target of his).
Nope. But I think we should all be aware that the anti-semitism was super high at the time in surrounding countries too, that's why he couldn't deport them.
What does the prevailing anti-semitism at the time have to do with anything?
Let me restate: Hitler would have been wrong about genocide even if it had led to a German utopia. It didn't, but even if it had, genocide is still wrong. There is no world where gassing children, or shooting women holding their kids, is justifiable. Even if this somehow magically leads to an utopia. Some means can never be justified; this is one of them.
Hitler's error wasn't that he underestimated the Soviet Union or that Germany ended up in ruins and he had to commit suicide: his error was conducting genocide.
>There is no world where gassing children, or shooting women holding their kids, is justifiable.
That's a moral statement, so it depends on your society's morality. You'd be surprised how many societies found such acts justifiable, and you'd be the 'crazy one out' for considering otherwise. In ancient times few would bat an eye, and most would cheer for the succesful extermination of enemies.
Let's not even go that far back in time. There were societies considering slavery justifiable. Or seggregation. Or taking native populations land by force. Or colonizing Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
I'm from Latin America and I'm well aware of how it was colonized.
In a sense, moral relativism allows for everything. It would allow, for example, situations where it's ok to rape and murder children, for example (dress it as a religious ritual, or whatever).
This however holds no truck with me. Segregation was bad. Slavery is bad. Rape is always bad. Genocide is always bad. It's ok to study cultures where mass rape or genocide was acceptable, while also understanding it's abhorrent. Let me be clear that I think it's ok to study and understand cultures who consider genocide acceptable, but genocide itself is never justified.
More importantly, Hitler lived in an era when genocide wasn't acceptable. He created a microclimate where Nazi leadership convinced others it was acceptable (within the inner circle they were plain about it, but outside of it they used euphemism because they knew people would recoil otherwise), but it wasn't acceptable in the Western world, so he doesn't even have that excuse.
This has the corollary that in the future, some acceptable practice today will likely be seen as horrendous, and I'm fine with that. But, again, we're talking genocide here, to put things into perspective.
Well I think my point is that the reason he ended up at genocide was logical given the underlying beliefs. His core belief wasn't about genocide, that was downstream from the basic mistake.
Like Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Hitler believed absurdities. The atrocities flowed downstream like water flowing down a hill.
Pol Pot and Mao also committed genocide, but they did it by incompetence of a very different sort. I am saying there's a unifying model where we can understand all of these.
I'll grant you this: everyone believes themselves the heroes of their own story. Hitler didn't believe himself a villain; he believed himself a hero.
But the moral cannot ever be "according to his underlying beliefs, genocide was logical", or "genocide was wrong because ultimately it didn't help Germany achieve its goals". You can understand why he thought genocide was the right course of action -- understanding people from history should never be taboo -- but you cannot ever justify it as logically consistent.
Genocide is always wrong. It's so wrong, it should make anyone stop whenever their thoughts lead down this road. It's the definitive no-no of means, the means that can never be justified by any ends.
Hitler may have been wrong about many things, and even right about some, but genocide is definitely always wrong, and we can say that he was a morally broken person because of it.
> but you cannot ever justify it as logically consistent
I don't understand where "justify" came from. It WAS logically consistent. But that's 100% irrelevant. Logic based on faulty assumptions is worthless, this is just "garbage in, garbage out". There is absolutely no morals to be had from garbage assumptions.
> Genocide is always wrong.
I don't think that's correct. Now, it has always been wrong HISTORICALLY, but saying that it is logically impossible to even imagine a science fiction scenario where it's the lesser evil just means you have a lack of imagination.
> but genocide is definitely always wrong, and we can say that he was a morally broken person because of it.
Again I disagree. The immorality of genocide flows downstream from my morals, it's not an axiom. I don't like the long-list-of-axioms family of morality. It doesn't scale, and it can't handle future situations. We need something much more stable than a long list of past mistakes. We need to understand what caused those mistakes, but even more important we need clear and practical rules about how to avoid that entire class of mistakes, including future similar mistakes that we have not made yet.
I forgot about this part of your comment, and it's important:
> We need to understand what caused those mistakes, but even more important we need clear and practical rules about how to avoid that entire class of mistakes, including future similar mistakes that we have not made yet
Fully agreed! I think it's worth debating what led Hitler down this path, and how he could convince people of its righteousness. To be clear, I'm not arguing against debating this. It's important, like you said, to get rid of whole classes of colossal mistakes (another example would be: "in order to prevent genocide, we need to commit genocide first!" -- the root problem is still genocide). Understanding dictators, torturers, flawed political systems is always important and valid.
What I'm arguing, plain and simple, is that whenever anyone decides genocide is the solution, that is in itself a moral failure and a horrific mistake, regardless of any other considerations. There may be other mistakes (like waging war against the Soviet Union, or failing to consider the industrial might of the USA, or even failing to understand the logistics of protracted war), but even without those mistakes, genocide was still an a priori moral failure.
> It WAS logically consistent. But that's 100% irrelevant. Logic based on faulty assumptions is worthless, this is just "garbage in, garbage out". There is absolutely no morals to be had from garbage assumptions.
Hard disagree. That's a utilitarian mindset. Morals is relevant regardless of whether the assumptions are faulty.
Even if Hitler had been right, and genociding Jews and Slavs truly was what would bring Germany up, even then, he would have been morally wrong.
You're begging the question here: the ends definitely do NOT justify the means in the case of genocide. That's it. Hitler was a morally bankrupt man not because of his flawed assumptions (we do agree they were flawed) but because he decided genocide was acceptable. Nothing else matters. Genocide is always wrong.
> The immorality of genocide flows downstream from my morals, it's not an axiom
Inasmuch as we are humans and there's no such thing as objective fact, but you're saying is trivially true but also too abstract.
For humans, genocide of other humans is always wrong. Don't sci-fi me, don't insult my intelligence. I have no failure of imagination: there is simply no future scenario where genocide or rape is acceptable, ever.
Genocide is always wrong. Survival at all costs -- say, by murdering children -- is unacceptable. No future scifi scenario you can think of will make it acceptable. It's ok to lose -- not you, humanity I mean -- if we reach such a dead-end where the only possible "solution" is genocide. It's ok to say "we cannot solve this problem, we cannot follow this abhorrent path".
"Your morals, axioms, etc": as I said, I've little patience for moral relativism as an argument for this kind of debates.
You misunderstood. I'm just saying that you cannot make good conclusions from bad assumptions. That's not a utilitarian mindset, that's just basic logic.
> Morals is relevant regardless of whether the assumptions are faulty.
That makes no sense. If your underlying beliefs are wrong you will commit atrocities. If you truly believe that a baby that grows up to be a Christian (or whatever) will be tortured in hell for all eternity, then it is an infinite good to kill that baby before that happens. This is what happens with bad assumptions. This isn't a hypothetical example btw, this is what real people believe TODAY.
> Inasmuch as we are humans and there's no such thing as objective fact,
Well that's just false.
> you're saying is trivially true but also too abstract.
Too abstract... for what?
> Don't sci-fi me, don't insult my intelligence.
That makes no sense. You are now using hysterical and emotional language because you are failing to be convincing with logic. That's not me insulting your intelligence, that's YOU insulting your own intelligence.
> I've little patience for moral relativism as an argument for this kind of debates.
There we agree 100%. I'm not arguing moral relativism at all. In fact quite the opposite. YOU argued moral relativism above with "no such thing as objective fact".
> if we reach such a dead-end where the only possible "solution" is genocide. It's ok to say "we cannot solve this problem, we cannot follow this abhorrent path".
That makes no logical sense. "Let all humans die, because we cannot follow this abhorrent path" is to trade genocide for extinction. Which is the same as trading 1 genocide against ALL genocides at the same time.
This is the point of thought experiments: to really test your logic to the extreme and see if it still makes sense. Your axiomatic approach does not survive this test, as you clearly demonstrate.
Your killing babies point demonstrates a common error with this kind of debate: there are a ton of steps you could take to stop a baby growing up Christian before you jump straight to killing it. A lot of them are also probably abhorrent like but might be better than killing.
> You misunderstood. I'm just saying that you cannot make good conclusions from bad assumptions. That's not a utilitarian mindset, that's just basic logic.
No, I understood you just fine. What you're saying is a form of the utilitarian view, "if the assumptions were good..." (or "this was bad because the assumptions were bad"), and I'm contradicting you: the assumptions don't matter, because genocide is always wrong. Argue all you want about logic, but genocide is always wrong.
> That makes no sense
[blah blah]
> That makes no logical sense. "Let all humans die, because we cannot follow this abhorrent path" is to trade genocide for extinction. Which is the same as trading 1 genocide against ALL genocides at the same time.
Extinction is not the same as genocide. The rest of your argument falls apart, but it was never all that solid or logical to begin with.
Best not proceed down this road: I find your attempts at "logic" silly, and this will inevitably devolve into a flamewar (I'm already witnessing some of your debate tactics, and I can't say I'm impressed).
Hitler lied including with "regard to his inner beliefs". He told lies he knew full well were lies. He also contradicted himself quite a lot, directly, which just one more data point towards "he knew he was lying". He gave instructions to people under him that amounted to "lie about this thing, because it is strategical".
> After all every politician lies.
There are massive differences in how much politicians lies. Some of them lie more, others less. There are massive differences in topics politicians lie about. Lying about liking a musical piece for example is not the same as lying about planned policies.
> Villains are heroes of their own story. This is something we must take to heart if we are ever to learn anything useful from history.
I would go even further and say there are no villains or heroes, real or imagined. It's just people with conflicting interests willing to go all the way to achieve theirs. That is my understanding of history.
The only objective difference I can find is what you called "factually wrong about the universe". That is the difference between not only Hitler and any allied commander, but between Hitler and Genghis Khan. One had a good model about the world he was living in and because of that was successful, the other not.
> The only objective difference I can find is what you called "factually wrong about the universe". That is the difference between not only Hitler and any allied commander, but between Hitler and Genghis Khan.
I disagree. Hitler thought jews made Germany weaker. In fact it was the exact opposite: the Nazis made Germany weaker. A LOT. Partially by killing Jews obviously, but partially by just not caring about reality but going all in on their preconceived ideas. Just like Mao or Pol Pot.
I guess I just disagree in word choice. I think we can still use words like "evil" and "villain" and still hold the belief that people who do evil don't consider themselves evil.
> I disagree. Hitler thought jews made Germany weaker. In fact it was the exact opposite: the Nazis made Germany weaker.
Why do you believe that Hitler honestly believed this?
Why is not much more plausible that Hitler saw that many around him had a historical suspicion or even hatred of Jewish people, and that many Jewish people were very wealthy, and believed that he could get that wealth for himself and enormous power by convincing people that he will strengthen the country by hurting these people?
Relevant to this discussion on how most of the worst atrocities in history were committed by people who believed themselves to be morally justified: The fact that it wasn't just morally wrong but strategically a mistake does suggest that Hitler genuinely believed the rhetoric, as if he just wanted to make up some lie to scapegoat a people, he could have made up a slightly different lie that wasn't quite as self-destructive.
1. If that cop shot every knife wielding attacker in the leg in the whole wide world he would be no closer to Hitler regardless of the scale, if Hitler only gassed a few Jews he would be no closer to being a cop trying to stop an aggressive action regardless of scale, this point makes no sense.
2. Hitler was factually wrong about the universe, explain. Had he successfully created his utopia are you saying he would have been factually right about the universe, and thus justified? See, I prefer the a deontalogocal approach where Hitler is wrong because he initiated violence against peaceful people, no happy ending could justify his actions.
>Had he successfully created his utopia are you saying he would have been factually right about the universe, and thus justified?
If we're talking about hypotheticals then, perhaps? If we assume that he succeeded in creating a utopia and the means he used were instrumental in doing so, then necessarily he was right in thinking that the particular method was correct to achieve the goal of the utopia. Whether the ends are justified is going to depend on the eventual characteristics of the utopia, on the sacrifices that were necessary, and on who you ask.
If he was wrong then there was no possible way to succeed, but if he succeeded there's no way he could have been wrong. Modus tollens.
>If he was wrong then there was no possible way to succeed, but if he succeeded there's no way he could have been wrong. Modus tollens
None of those are mutually exclusive options (or the only options).
He could be wrong about him preferred means being instrumental to creating a utopia (e.g. utopia could also be achieved with different means), but still manage to create a utopia using those means (e.g. he manages to steal land and resources and create a strong big country with a stable regime that lasts 1000 years, whose citizens eventually becomes very prosperous and happy, even if tens of millions were murdered).
In any case, achieving one's own goal and that goal being worthy and the means to achieve it being justified are different matters.
The first is about being effective. The latter needs a framework of justification, and that is usually morality/ethics. And that would be subjective (the victims, their friends and families, sympathizers to their cause, etc. would have another opinion).
>He could be wrong about him preferred means being instrumental to creating a utopia (e.g. utopia could also be achieved with different means), but still manage to create a utopia using those means (e.g. he manages to steal land and resources and create a strong big country with a stable regime that lasts 1000 years, whose citizens eventually becomes very prosperous and happy, even if tens of millions were murdered).
I think you're being excessively nit-picky. Did Hitler think that utopia could only be reached through genocide (in which case had he succeeded he could still have been wrong), or was genocide just what he saw as the most straightforward path to that end?
>The first is about being effective. The latter needs a framework of justification, and that is usually morality/ethics. And that would be subjective (the victims, their friends and families, sympathizers to their cause, etc. would have another opinion).
Yeah, I agree, and I said as much. Even in the hypothetical utopia, whether it was justified will depend on who you ask.
>Did Hitler think that utopia could only be reached through genocide (in which case had he succeeded he could still have been wrong), or was genocide just what he saw as the most straightforward path to that end?
Well, in both cases he could succeed and still be objectively wrong about that, no?
Even if he saw it as "merely" "the most straightforward path to that end" (as opposed to the "only means to that end"), it could still very well, not have been the "most straightforward path to that end".
I mean, not invading Russia, not declaring war on the US, not bombing the UK, biding his time and keeping his existing central and eastern European conquests, and perhaps giving Jews some land under his control from those conquests (or Jerusalem or Cyprus as was one plan), would have been way better for achieving his utopia...
Given that all we know is that he failed, there's no way we can know what he could have done different to succeed. Perhaps he was just doomed to fail no matter what.
> If we're talking about hypotheticals then, perhaps
How can you say such a thing? Do you not recoil in horror when innocent people are murdered?
A system founded on genocide and tyranny will necessarily continue to use those means to ensure its survival in the face of any threat to its survival.
Hitler was necessarily, categorically unable to establish any utopia because of the nature of the authority he claimed and used en route.
The question isn't whether the ends could have justified the means. The reality is that the means used utterly shut out any good ends from even being possible as long as he remained in power.
An assumption of the hypothetical is that Hitler succeeded and created a utopia. The question was not about whether those means in reality could have possibly created a utopia; I agree with you, they couldn't have. The question was if we assume Hitler succeeded and created a utopia, then he was right?
I think the salient point is the horror. If you find the means so horrific, why do you consider this ideology justifiable. Just because someone can exhibit this behavior doesn't mean they should. To your original point in all of this, does this being a morally consistent example of where consequentialism leads not make you question the basis of it being right?
> If you find the means so horrific, why do you consider this ideology justifiable.
Because I don't think there's anything that's unjustifiable, and I say that in the literal sense. That is, take any position and you'll find both people who agree with it and people who disagree with it. I've seen people seriously argue that 1+1=2 is not necessarily true. I explicitly try to avoid thinking "yeah, that's obvious, no one could disagree with that".
It's obvious to us that the holocaust was a horrible event that would be better if it had never happened. I don't think it would be so obvious to someone living in this hypothetical utopia. Hell, I'm not sure it's obvious to everyone living right now. Are you saying you can't conceive of any society that's so advanced that most people would think "yeah, it was terrible that so many people had to die, but look at everything we have"?
I can conceive of the society, yes, I think we both probably live in one. It won't be obvious to everyone that a certain action is horrific, this is also true. Which is why I take a more firm stance on not initiating aggression on peaceful people, it short circuits all tribalism and fervor in favor of a principle which before all other action must be followed. This also isn't readily obvious to everyone necessarily, but it also provides me the latitude to defend myself from the initiation of agression by others, so it doesnt necessirily need to.
That's not really what I am getting at though. You as an individual, I think should consider leaning into the horrific scenarios made possible by an ends justify the means framework and consider whether other moral frameworks are more appropriate. Of course people will always do what people do, it doesn't follow that they are justified in doing so.
I don't believe people act the way they do based on one moral framework or another, nor that they have as many choices anyway. I'm not even sure Hitler was too exceptional, beyond his position of power. I think most people act impulsively most of the time, and that sometimes their actions can be retroactively justified.
As another example, I don't think the perpetrators of the rape of Nanking were exceptional men; I think most of them were ordinary men in an exceptional situation. If that's not the case, then I can't reconcile that with how many pillages have happened throughout history.
If this is consequentialism, then I wholly reject it on the basis that it allows logically (and morally) inconsistent views of reality.
No one creates good out of their own evil. Perhaps the question is only seriously posited in the face of an enemy whose defeat would seem to require use of evil means.
If that's what you're facing, dear reader, then stay strong and hold fast. Don't resort to evil means. If you do, the real enemy (evil itself) has won over you, you become part of the problem, and you may become an enemy to a better person than you.
Do you think murdering innocents, children included -- shooting mothers with their children in their arms -- could possibly be right, regardless of whether any utopia is ever reached?
(I know you don't, I'm not accusing you of anything. All I'm arguing is against this particular notion of ends justifying the means. We know there are people who think like this, but the mind of someone who would believe this is hopelessly broken, in my opinion.)
Well then thank you for your honesty. Personally I do not find Hitler ultimately reaching his ends as a compelling argument in favor of consequentialism. I am curious where this idea comes from however, would you care to elaborate on any particular philosophical or political influences/beliefs you have?
I think you're either using the word "consequentialism" wrong, or you're misunderstanding my point. A consequentialist argument would be "Hitler's actions created a utopia, therefore they were morally right". What I'm saying is that had Hitler created a utopia, he would have been right that his actions would lead to a utopia.
No, I think I understand your point, from Hitlers frame it would have been justified. A consequentialist argument can take place before the action itself, we need to perform X because the outcome will be Y. Sometimes the means and ends align with deotological means and ends, other times they do not. I am saying your reasoning is consequentialist because it is an end justify the means argument, and I disagree because regardless of whether hitlers ends are met I think he would still be wrong because I reject consequentialism as a moral argument. I reject it precisely because these are the outcomes consistent with this as moral framework.
I'm a bit thirsty right now. I think if I get up and drink a glass of water, I'll stop being thirsty. You can look at the sequence of events after the fact and think "fluoridation was right that drinking water would quench his thirst" or "fluoridation was wrong that drinking water would quench his thirst". Neither statement is consequentialist, because neither passes judgement on the morality of drinking water, on no longer being thirsty, or on using one to achieve the other. You're just making a statement about how my thinking aligns with reality. Changing the goal or the method changes nothing. Replace "drinking water" with "sacrificing infants on the field" and "being thirsty" with "having a poor harvest". You can call me ignorant and superstitious without judging me morally on my actions or my thinking.
Uhh, hmm OK I think you may have been right about my misunderstanding, I think we got disjointed when I said "factually correct and thus justified", I carried on remembering the justified part. Yes he would have been factually right, he did in fact create the utopia, regardless of whether he was justified. On the topic of justified however, yes I consider this a question of consequentialism versus deontology, an attempt to justify the means by the ends is consequentialist and I squarely reject it. People engaging in consequentialist reasoning on the topic itself does not justify the consequentialist reasoning.
2. If he was right about the Jews he would have improved the world immensely. But of course he was enormously and famously wrong. Jews have contributed enormously to the world, way outside their population numbers would suggest.
> where Hitler is wrong because he initiated violence against peaceful people
Well.. I mean, in the mind of Hitler they were not peaceful. So that's kinda missing the point. The point is that Hitler was the hero in his own mind, and in the mind of his followers. If you truly grasp this concept you will realize that righteous fury is SUPER DANGEROUS. And it's more dangerous the larger the scale.
Evil = wrongness * certainty * power.
This is the key to understanding Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot.
1. You claimed that the difference between the cop and Hitler is one of scale. The poster above was explaining that it's not: had Hitler gassed a single Jewish person, just like the cop shot a single knife wielder, Hitler would still be morally evil and the cop would be morally good.
Now, about your "evil = wrongness * certainty * power" argument - this assumes that all people are fundamentally good, but potentially misguided. This view is incompatible with the foundations of law (intent to commit a crime is a basic part of penal law in virtually every legal system), and with the most basic intuitions of most people, so I find it very hard to defend. To many people, the end that justifies their means is simply their own well-being.
When someone breaks into a home to steal a TV, they aren't doing so because they strongly believe the TV belongs to them. They do so because they believe this is a good way for them to get a TV (or the equivalent in money). They are often very right about that fact. That does not make them any less evil for taking my TV.
1. Shooting someone is evil, if we remove all context. Killing is evil, if we remove all context. But that's the thing, it's all about the context.
> They do so because they believe this is a good way for them to get a TV (or the equivalent in money).
Well.. maybe. They are delusional about the gains it will give them though. A life of crime does not in fact pay. They might also be desperate, and in that case it's not much of an evil in the first place. That's the entire plot of Les Miserables :P
> They are delusional about the gains it will give them though. A life of crime does not in fact pay.
This is far from obvious. Plenty of criminals have lived either their entire lives or at least decades in quite remarkable luxury. Plenty of petty thieves and even robbers are never caught.
Also, plenty of people who commit less evil acts but from similar motivations (such as assuming credit for a colleague's work to ascend the corporate ladder) are virtually guaranteed to live richer lives than those who don't. Few politicians ever get elected if they don't lie at least some of the time, to any position above mayor maybe. Very few corrupt officials are ever caught, or ever lose their fortunes if caught.
And, of course, some of history's biggest conquerors lived rich fulfilling lives of power and died of old age. Look at people like Genghis Khan or Octavian Augustus etc. Should we not consider them evil simply because they were right about how conquering others and stealing their wealth would benefit them?
> Plenty of criminals have lived either their entire lives or at least decades in quite remarkable luxury. Plenty of petty thieves and even robbers are never caught.
Some people win the lottery, doesn't mean the lottery pays.
> Genghis Khan, Octavian Augustus
Yea, we do need to do some more moral analysis to understand how this was negative even for them in the long run.
At some point our moral system must take a view beyond the individual, or it will collapse almost instantly. That is a very different discussion though I think :P
This is an assumption about the internal motivations of villains that we don't have any access to. In general, making assumptions about the internal workings of the minds of historical people is a game of guessing.
A much better method is to assume that these people meant to do exactly what they actually did. In this case, the best assumption about Hitler is to assume that he wanted to kill as many Jewish people (and also Romani people, Armenians, gays and others) as he could, and to conquer vast swaths of Europe. Why he may have done so is mere speculation. That he wrote some manifestos claiming there was some higher purpose to all this can easily be ignored: we have no way of knowing whether he was lying in those manifestos, or even in personal diaries.
This holds true for how we should evaluate every action of anyone we have no hope of knowing personally: judging by the outcomes (at least the ones that we know for sure they were aware about), not by proclaimed internal motivations. If the policeman in your example shot someone lunging with a knife, then it's fair to say that they meant to stop a knife attack. If a policeman shot someone holding a knife to cut a tomato, then it's fair to say that they meant to harm that person in particular, even if the policeman claims that they thought the knife-holder was about to threaten someone else.
Note: I am not talking about how jurors in a court of law should approach such a question. I am talking about how this question should be approached in the context of history.
> A much better method is to assume that these people meant to do exactly what they actually did.
That doesn't work. He shot himself in the head. Was that his plan all along? Clearly that method of analysis has some problems.
> Note: I am not talking about how jurors in a court of law should approach such a question. I am talking about how this question should be approached in the context of history.
That's a certain way of viewing history that I dislike. It robs past people of all agency and we never trust anything anyone says. That's way too cynical. It also has no explanatory power.
> That doesn't work. He shot himself in the head. Was that his plan all along? Clearly that method of analysis has some problems.
Perhaps. He did "achieve" a few other things before that point either way.
> That's a certain way of viewing history that I dislike. It robs past people of all agency and we never trust anything anyone says. That's way too cynical. It also has no explanatory power.
The thing is, we know for a fact that historical writings were highly motivated by propaganda purposes, and/or highly colored by the biases of the writer's culture.
Very very few historical sources, especially going back to the middle ages or before, were writing from some intention of having objective history remembered. They were writing for some emperor or another, disparaging their enemies and deifying their families and reigns. Even personal letters, to the extent that we find them, tend to do the same thing.
And even looking at more modern sources, you'll often find flagrant bias in reporting, and extraordinary levels of praise or disparagement of the characters involved depending on the source.
It is then important to realize that we simply don't have access to the real characters of the people written about, ever. We at best get an idea of what they actually did, but we don't have any idea of their real personalities or intentions or beliefs. We barely know who the worse abuser was between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, and we got to see a whole trial with plenty of clear evidence from both of them. We simply don't have any chance of judging what Charlemagne actually believed about virtually anything, or what kind of a guy he was.
Now I can, using YOUR logic, just claim that you don't actually believe anything you wrote, you are just pandering to the current zeitgeist of postmodern nonsense :P
With respect, your comparison of Hitler and a cop is totally invalid.
A cop who's acting in accordance with the law will only shoot someone if he perceives an imminent danger to himself or someone else. The danger justifies the act.
Hitler prosecuted a war of aggression. Nobody was brandishing a knife at him when he decided to kill millions. This is why Hitler's acts were unjustified.
In both cases we trace the morality of the act back to fundamental precepts- e.g. your right to life liberty etc.
> Nobody was brandishing a knife at him when he decided to kill millions.
But HE thought so. That's the entire point. He was enormously confused about REALITY. He truly believed in a global conspiracy that was destroying what was good in the world in order to promote what was evil.
You have trouble seeing this, because your understanding of reality is correct. That's a good thing, but it makes you understand evil less, and understanding evil is a prerequisite to avoiding it.
We must truly embrace the truth: misunderstanding reality is the first step to evil. As Voltaire said: "those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities". This isn't a new concept!
Putin invaded Ukraine because he is enormously deluded. That's it. There's nothing else. He REALLY thought he was under direct threat from NATO. He's enormously wrong though, and the damage done to Russia and Ukraine from his wrongness is enormous.
There are plenty of examples of historical people who conquered and subjugated others because they believed that it would make them rich and powerful. Some were right, some were wrong. Some proclaimed various other motives (bringing peace, fostering democracy, civilizing the savages, defending the faith, protecting their honor, etc). Some may have even believed them. But there is no shortage of people who decide to kill and oppress others because they view it as a means to get ahead. Why we should assume Hitler or Putin, of all monsters, are some of the more delusional ones who actually believe their propaganda is beyond me.
As a complete side note, claiming that NATO is not a threat to Russia is also somewhat deluded, but that still doesn't justify anything about the war. What is clear is that invading another country is a morally evil act and that it has essentially never prevented more suffering than it has caused on balance, even in some of the most benevolent scenarios (like Kosovo).
> Why we should assume Hitler or Putin, of all monsters, are some of the more delusional ones who actually believe their propaganda is beyond me.
I don't see why we shouldn't. They clearly stated their beliefs. Hitler stated them in private letters. It wasn't propaganda, it was honest beliefs. Just like it's honest beliefs that made Mao accidentally kill millions of his own people, or that made islamists hijack planes and fly them into buildings.
The idea that are real motives like money is so silly. It infantilizes everyone, by not believing what they say plainly and clearly. And it doesn't even pass logical muster in the end. There's no way you can claim the 9/11 hijackers were really out to score a buck or something for example. They knew they were going to die.
> > Why we should assume Hitler or Putin, of all monsters, are some of the more delusional ones who actually believe their propaganda is beyond me.
> I don't see why we shouldn't.
In Putin’s case (Hitler's is less fresh in my mind), the fact that the propaganda is internally inconsistent over time, near in time to different audiences, and even at times in the same speech, and that the motivations it identifies are inconsistent with both actual policy and verifiable facts within Putin’s reasonable knowledge all are very good reasons to suspect very large portions of it are not true and are not being told for the purpose of providing honest insight into Putin's thought processes.
> Hitler stated them in private letters. It wasn't propaganda, it was honest beliefs.
Private letters can also be a vehicle for manipulation of the recipient, propaganda can be retail as well as wholesale. There’s no minimim audience size for it.
Saying that someone hides their selfish motivations behind high-minded rhetoric is not infantilizing. We don't owe it to anyone to believe what they say, even if they say it plainly and clearly. When someone's every move brings them more power and wealth, I for one become very suspicious of any claims they make (whether publicly or privately) about the altruistic motivations behind their moves.
Still, if you really want to get into a debate about Hitler's personal beliefs, we would actually need to evaluate what might have made him believe what he professed to believe about the ills of the world. We obviously know he was wrong, but was it plausible, or is it only motivated thinking that might have made him believe these things?
> What is clear is that invading another country is a morally evil act and that it has essentially never prevented more suffering than it has caused on balance, even in some of the most benevolent scenarios (like Kosovo).
Well that seems utterly absurd. The Allies invasion of Nazi Germany is an enormously clear example to the contrary.
I should have said "invading another country that hasn't attacked you or your allies previously". Taking an invasion back to the original invaders is much more justifiable. My point was that starting a new war has virtually never been a good thing.
For example, if the USA were to attack North Korea to stop the obvious human rights violations happening there, I don't think that would actually be a morally justifiable act. It would be much more likely to lead to more human suffering overall than it actually prevents: this was my intended point.
In the case of North Korea I think we can at least pass judgement retroactively on the Korean War. To me the population sizes of North and South Korea alone make is extremely clear who was right and who was wrong in that conflict.
If brutal honesty is not tolerated then people will just lie more. If Hitler had believed that this speech mattered (and he was probably correct that it did not) then he would have just said something different and had the same actions carried out.
The real problem is the people who, in public, only accept exactly what people claim verbally and either unwilling or unable to look at the incentives in play. We've had people just as bad mindset as Hitler in government - probably even in the major democracies. There isn't really an argument otherwise, we know the system favours amoral narcissistic sociopaths in high office. The checks on power and better incentives in a democracy matter far more than honesty or lies.