3 ms·

>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

>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.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >there's no way we can know what he could have done different to succeed Not, but we can have some pretty good guesses

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.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >there's no way we can know what he could have done different to succeed Not, but we can have some pretty good guesses