7 ms·

So... that's OK then..?

boxed 3y ago
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.
- the_af 3y ago
  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.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >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.
    - the_af 3y ago
      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.
  - boxed 3y ago
    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.
    - the_af 3y ago
      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.
      - boxed 3y ago
        > 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.

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.

the_af 3y ago
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.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >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.
  - the_af 3y ago
    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.
- boxed 3y ago
  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.
  - the_af 3y ago
    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.
    - boxed 3y ago
      > 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.