Good and Evil?

[Vairocana]

Because no internet debate is complete without fulfilling Godwin's Law, how does Hitler fit into your good/evil paradigm?

He did what he did to help Germany (which it did).
For Germany, I think he brought order.

Did he benefit the most from his actions? Quite possibly.

[Icy]

[quote name='Vairocana' timestamp='1333604606' post='5902330']
Because no internet debate is complete without fulfilling Godwin's Law, how does Hitler fit into your good/evil paradigm?

He did what he did to help Germany (which it did).
For Germany, I think he brought order.

Did he benefit the most from his actions? Quite possibly.
[/quote]

I swear this argument (I don't wanna call it a debate due to the high level of animosity regarding it), is so frustrating. So instead we shall refer to [url="http://youtu.be/OLtj-U6havs"]The Great Dictator Speech[/url]. Which settles almost anything as far as that goes. And don't worry about this Law, it's justified here as it's as grey as it gets in every context. Provided of course people do not use pro's and con's, but instead natural benefits and potentials refraining from using any specifics at all.

[Tentacruel]

[quote name='Vairocana' timestamp='1333604606' post='5902330']
He did what he did to help Germany (which it did).
For Germany, I think he brought order.

Did he benefit the most from his actions? Quite possibly.
[/quote]
[quote name='Icy' timestamp='1333604178' post='5902327']

That it is [i]doing something to destroy order, to penalize or manipulate something to benefit the person who has taken the action the most[/i].

[/quote]

Sounds like evil to me.

[mikel.]

[quote name='Comrade Trollestia' timestamp='1333626088' post='5902416']
Sounds like evil to me.
[/quote]
then again i say is evil your choice of what works for you?

[Tentacruel]

[quote name='~FoRwArD~' timestamp='1333662438' post='5902978']
then again i say is evil your choice of what works for you?
[/quote]
Not at all.

[mikel.]

[quote name='Comrade Trollestia' timestamp='1333664477' post='5903023']
Not at all.
[/quote]
so it does not work for you then you call it evil, right?

[Tentacruel]

[quote name='~FoRwArD~' timestamp='1333683485' post='5903424']
so it does not work for you then you call it evil, right?
[/quote]

And again you make an assumption. Math doesn't really work for me. I don't like it. Math is not evil.

[mikel.]

[quote name='Comrade Trollestia' timestamp='1333684208' post='5903443']
And again you make an assumption. Math doesn't really work for me. I don't like it. Math is not evil.
[/quote]
Will you tell me your reason of evil? Because evil goes with no define other that what works for/ not what works. Why i say? Kill someone at the street is not okay while killing someone at war is fine, makes really no difference it's really a thought about, so is evil defined to be?

[Yankee]

There is only what society dictates there to be. There is no good or evil, only what society frowns on, and what society smiles on.

Also, it depends on who you are.
Jesus Christ is what many people consider to be good.
However, what if you where Roman during his time? What if you were a leader of Rome? All of a sudden, Jesus is evil.

Ghandi is considered good, too. What if you were of the opposing side? Ghandi was evil.

Same for MLK.

Same thing can be said about Adolf Hitler. The world hates him because of all the people he killed.
However, what if you were a poor, German worker in the 1930's? Adolf Hitler was a savior.

[Icy]

[quote name='Cifer' timestamp='1333698003' post='5903568']
There is only what society dictates there to be. There is no good or evil, only what society frowns on, and what society smiles on.

Also, it depends on who you are.
Jesus Christ is what many people consider to be good.
However, what if you where Roman during his time? What if you were a leader of Rome? All of a sudden, Jesus is evil.

Ghandi is considered good, too. What if you were of the opposing side? Ghandi was evil.

Same for MLK.

Same thing can be said about Adolf Hitler. The world hates him because of all the people he killed.
However, what if you were a poor, German worker in the 1930's? Adolf Hitler was a savior.
[/quote]

Jesus wasn't evil to them, he was frightening because he had good things to say and do. But his grips on the mindsets of those at the time with his words frightened them, and since society back then was very different (there wasnt any concept of anything of a country but more like territorial villages). For him it may have just been words and the aftermath a mere function of the process. For them, it may have been seen as a form of conquering. Not evil, not good, just neutral if frightening.

For Ghandi, it wasn't that either. He was a great annoyance for them that went on to show success.

What Hitler did, until the just before the Holocaust and all that was seen as great. No one can deny that. But just before, during and after?

[color=#ff0000][size=5][u][b][font=lucida sans unicode,lucida grande,sans-serif]If you're gonna debate something that has to be defined, DEFINE IT! Don't run around with neutral definitions, they don't progress the debate.[/font][/b][/u][/size][/color]

[Yankee]

[quote name='Icy' timestamp='1333725962' post='5903765']
Jesus wasn't evil to them, he was frightening because he had good things to say and do. But his grips on the mindsets of those at the time with his words frightened them, and since society back then was very different (there wasnt any concept of anything of a country but more like territorial villages). For him it may have just been words and the aftermath a mere function of the process. For them, it may have been seen as a form of conquering. Not evil, not good, just neutral if frightening.

[b]What is evil except that what which we fear?[/b]

For Ghandi, it wasn't that either. He was a great annoyance for them that went on to show success.

[b]I'm sure those exist that saw Ghandi as evil, as opposed to a simple annoyance.[/b]

What Hitler did, until the just before the Holocaust and all that was seen as great. No one can deny that. But just before, during and after?

[b]During the war, he was fighting for the power of Germany, and to create a Utopian empire. Many Germans saw him as a a great person before, during, and after the war.[/b]

[color=#ff0000][size=5][u][b][font=lucida sans unicode,lucida grande,sans-serif]If you're gonna debate something that has to be defined, DEFINE IT! Don't run around with neutral definitions, they don't progress the debate.[/font][/b][/u][/size][/color]
[/quote]

[Vairocana]

[quote name='Icy' timestamp='1333725962' post='5903765']
Jesus wasn't evil to them, he was frightening because he had good things to say and do. But his grips on the mindsets of those at the time with his words frightened them, and since society back then was very different (there wasnt any concept of anything of a country but more like territorial villages). For him it may have just been words and the aftermath a mere function of the process. For them, it may have been seen as a form of conquering. Not evil, not good, just neutral if frightening.

For Ghandi, it wasn't that either. He was a great annoyance for them that went on to show success.

What Hitler did, until the just before the Holocaust and all that was seen as great. No one can deny that. But just before, during and after?

[color=#ff0000][size=5][u][b][font=lucida sans unicode,lucida grande,sans-serif]If you're gonna debate something that has to be defined, DEFINE IT! Don't run around with neutral definitions, they don't progress the debate.[/font][/b][/u][/size][/color]
[/quote]

I find it difficult to believe such definitive statements, [i]especially[/i] about Jesus and Ghandi. You can't really say that for a fact. And considering Jesus's teachings were essentially undermining Roman authority, I wouldn't be surprised if many of them thought he was evil (especially post-death).

[mikel.]

[quote name='Icy' timestamp='1333725962' post='5903765']
Jesus wasn't evil to them, he was frightening because he had good things to say and do. But his grips on the mindsets of those at the time with his words frightened them, and since society back then was very different (there wasnt any concept of anything of a country but more like territorial villages). For him it may have just been words and the aftermath a mere function of the process. For them, it may have been seen as a form of conquering. Not evil, not good, just neutral if frightening.

For Ghandi, it wasn't that either. He was a great annoyance for them that went on to show success.

What Hitler did, until the just before the Holocaust and all that was seen as great. No one can deny that. But just before, during and after?

[color=#FF0000][size=5][u][b][font=lucida sans unicode,lucida grande,sans-serif]If you're gonna debate something that has to be defined, DEFINE IT! Don't run around with neutral definitions, they don't progress the debate.[/font][/b][/u][/size][/color]
[/quote]
[quote name='Vairocana' timestamp='1333750963' post='5904285']
I find it difficult to believe such definitive statements, [i]especially[/i] about Jesus and Ghandi. You can't really say that for a fact. And considering Jesus's teachings were essentially undermining Roman authority, I wouldn't be surprised if many of them thought he was evil (especially post-death).
[/quote]

But really deep to this point there is not evil or good it's our self's who DEFINE IT, where a familiarity with someone or something, which can include facts, information, descriptions, or skills acquired through experience or education. It can refer to the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. It can be implicit (as with practical skill or expertise) or explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of a subject); and it can be more or less formal or systematic, i was told in philosophy, the study of knowledge is called epistemology, and the philosopher Plato famously defined knowledge as "justified true belief" so definitions of evil vary, as does the analysis of its root motives and causes; however, evil is commonly associated with conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, discrimination designed to harm others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological well-being and dignity, destructiveness, motives of causing "unnecessary" pain or suffering and acts of unnecessary or indiscriminate violence, right?

[i]And t[/i][i]heories of moral goodness[/i] inquire into what sorts of things are good, and what the word "good" really means in the abstract. As a philosophical concept, goodness might represent a hope that natural love be [i]continuous, expansive,[/i] and [i]all-inclusive[/i]. In a monotheistic religious context, it is by this [i]hope[/i] that an important concept of God is derived —as an infinite projection of love, manifest as goodness in the lives of people. In other contexts, the good is viewed to be whatever produces the best consequences upon the lives of people, especially with regard to their states of well being.