4 ms·

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 ga

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...
      - fluoridation 3y ago
        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.
- TimTheTinker 3y ago
  > 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.
  - fluoridation 3y ago
    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?
    - Geisterde 3y ago
      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?
      - fluoridation 3y ago
        > 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"?
- Geisterde 3y ago
  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?
  - fluoridation 3y ago
    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.
    - Geisterde 3y ago
      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.
      - fluoridation 3y ago
        Sorry, but I'm not following you. 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.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Hitler's and the Nazi's vision were very far from anything utopian (in the sense of eutopian) any such outcome would have been accidental.
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

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...
    - fluoridation 3y ago
      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.
TimTheTinker 3y ago
> 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.
- fluoridation 3y ago
  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?
  - Geisterde 3y ago
    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?
    - fluoridation 3y ago
      > 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"?
Geisterde 3y ago
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?
- fluoridation 3y ago
  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.
  - Geisterde 3y ago
    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.
    - fluoridation 3y ago
      Sorry, but I'm not following you. 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.
RandomLensman 3y ago
Hitler's and the Nazi's vision were very far from anything utopian (in the sense of eutopian) any such outcome would have been accidental.

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