9 ms·

The Lack of Self-Deception

46 points by serhack_ 3y ago

boxed 3y ago
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.
- Geisterde 3y ago
  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.
  - fluoridation 3y ago
    >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.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      >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).
      - fluoridation 3y ago
        >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.
        coldtea 3y ago
        >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...
  - boxed 3y ago
    1. I can't even parse your logic here. Sorry :/ 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.
    - simiones 3y ago
      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.
      - boxed 3y ago
        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
- trabant00 3y ago
  > 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.
  - boxed 3y ago
    > 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.
    - trabant00 3y ago
      That is exactly my point. So how are you disagreeing?
      - boxed 3y ago
        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.
    - YurgenJurgensen 3y ago
      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.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >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.
  - fluoridation 3y ago
    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.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      >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.
- safety1st 3y ago
  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.
  - boxed 3y ago
    > 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.
    - simiones 3y ago
      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).
- simiones 3y ago
  > Villains are heroes of their own story. 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.
  - boxed 3y ago
    > 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.
    - simiones 3y ago
      > 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.
roenxi 3y ago
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.
- watwut 3y ago
  > 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.
  - boxed 3y ago
    > If your honesty means being brutal, issue is you. "brutal honesty" does not mean physically brutal. It means not sugar coating the truth.
    - JackFr 3y ago
daedlanth 3y ago
[dead]

46 points by serhack_ 3y ago

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.

Geisterde 3y ago
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.
- fluoridation 3y ago
  >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.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >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).
    - fluoridation 3y ago
      >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.
      - coldtea 3y ago
        >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...
- boxed 3y ago
  1. I can't even parse your logic here. Sorry :/ 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.
  - simiones 3y ago
    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.
    - boxed 3y ago
      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
trabant00 3y ago
> 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.
- boxed 3y ago
  > 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.
  - trabant00 3y ago
    That is exactly my point. So how are you disagreeing?
    - boxed 3y ago
      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.
  - YurgenJurgensen 3y ago
    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.
coldtea 3y ago
>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.
- fluoridation 3y ago
  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.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >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.
safety1st 3y ago
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.
- boxed 3y ago
  > 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.
  - simiones 3y ago
    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).
simiones 3y ago
> Villains are heroes of their own story. 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.
- boxed 3y ago
  > 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.
  - simiones 3y ago
    > 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.

roenxi 3y ago

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.

watwut 3y ago
> 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.
- boxed 3y ago
  > If your honesty means being brutal, issue is you. "brutal honesty" does not mean physically brutal. It means not sugar coating the truth.
  - JackFr 3y ago

daedlanth 3y ago

[dead]