Was Hitler actually evil?

[Deckerd]

I'm afraid not. Objectifying and externalising human behaviour is definitely the reserve of religious language.

I call this militant atheism. Anything religious people believe, you can't believe.

Oh really? I thought I was making a point of semantics and religious language. I don't recall at any point in this thread saying such usage is to be condemned. Did you see it anywhere?

 

[Deckerd]

My only comment on the language non-religious people use - some frequently say stupid things like "I don't believe in god but I hope he rots in hell" which only shows that they are either fooling themselves about their religiousness or ignorant about the religious iconicity they are using. It still doesn't change the fact that 'good' and 'evil' are religious concepts.

Are you saying that religion predates morality?

Because I would argue that "good" and "evil" are moral concepts first.

No, they're religious concepts. Behaving ethically predates written history and is the reserve of no religion. Recent experiments on 6 month-old babies has demonstrated they are capable of ethical behaviour.

 

[RoJoHen]

My only comment on the language non-religious people use - some frequently say stupid things like "I don't believe in god but I hope he rots in hell" which only shows that they are either fooling themselves about their religiousness or ignorant about the religious iconicity they are using. It still doesn't change the fact that 'good' and 'evil' are religious concepts.

Are you saying that religion predates morality?

Because I would argue that "good" and "evil" are moral concepts first.

No, they're religious concepts.

Okay, um...explain this. Just saying it doesn't make it true. WHY are they specifically religious concepts? Maybe they didn't have NAMES until put in a religious context (which I'd still ask you to prove), but the abstract concepts of good and evil have no doubt been around longer.

Who is to say that some people don't consider "evil" synonymous with "unethical" or "immoral?"

 

[Deckerd]

They are external 'things' which are separate from the human who commits them. This is a religious concept. The non-religious view is that human behaviour is personal to that human and indivisible from them. The word 'moral' also carries an awful lot of religious baggage but at least does not differentiate between the person and the action.

 

[RoJoHen]

They are external 'things' which are separate from the human who commits them. This is a religious concept.

So is your argument that Evil is one of these things? If so, I'd say that's a very narrow definition of the word.

The non-religious view is that human behaviour is personal to that human and indivisible from them. The word 'moral' also carries an awful lot of religious baggage but at least does not differentiate between the person and the action.

Are you trying to say that a person can do evil things, but that a person can't actually be evil? I'm not saying there aren't religious connections to these words, but I think I'm just disagreeing on your definition of them.

A person committing an immoral action is no different than someone committing an evil action, except maybe in terms of the severity of the action.

 

[Deckerd]

I'm fed up saying this. You should really research this yourself. It's a very interesting subject. The word 'evil' is often used as synonymous with 'wicked' but it is an external force, which usually takes the personification of the devil or some other embodiment depending on the religion. You can guess what is the embodiment of 'good'. These forces guide all human behaviour. I'm not going to say any more because you are mixing up a general term with a specific term and don't appear to understand the point I was making.

As regards your 'person doing evil things but can't actually be evil'. THAT is a basic tenet of Christianity.

 

[RoJoHen]

I'm fed up saying this. You should really research this yourself. It's a very interesting subject.

I have no doubt it's an interesting subject. That's why I'm asking you about it. I am not, however, going to go into research mode and try to uncover the true history of Evil just so I can talk on a message board.

The word 'evil' is often used as synonymous with 'wicked' but it is an external force, which usually takes the personification of the devil or some other embodiment depending on the religion. You can guess what is the embodiment of 'good'. These forces guide all human behaviour.

Again, you're not proving anything with these statements. Saying evil is "usually" something to do with religion (the devil or whatever) doesn't mean it is ONLY a religious concept.

I'm not going to say any more because you are mixing up a general term with a specific term and don't appear to understand the point I was making.

Maybe I am mixing up terms, but you seem to be basing these terms on very specific definitions that I am unfamiliar with. You're making arguments without backing them up with anything; you don't need to provide links to sources, but some relevant elaboration would do you some good if your point is to debate.

As regards your 'person doing evil things but can't actually be evil'. THAT is a basic tenet of Christianity.

Well, as an atheist, I'm not really concerned with Christianity's definition of evil. I'm concerned with the concept of Evil as a whole. And as an atheist who believes that Good and Evil exist in the world, I have a hard time accepting your claim that they are strictly religious ideas.

 

[Shaw]

I'm afraid not. Objectifying and externalising human behaviour is definitely the reserve of religious language.

I call this militant atheism. Anything religious people believe, you can't believe.

This is sort of interesting... how can one be an atheist and militant with regards to it? Atheism is a passive belief system, not active. You don't have to try to be an atheist any more than you have to try to not believe in other things (like UFOs or ghosts for example).

The fact of the matter is that we were all born atheists, but somewhere along the line many of you guys acquired a belief in some religion. If that belief was a natural aspect of being human, then I would have guessed that all believers would be believing pretty much the same thing. But the number of religions would seem to prove otherwise.

There are those who are rebelling against religion who call themselves atheists, but I'm not sure that they truly qualify. The only active aspect of being an atheist that I know of is requesting that believers keep from inflicting themselves on those around them. But that should be a given anyways, as not all believers believe in the same stuff.

I'm happy that you guys who believe in something are happy in that belief, I would only ask that you keep it to yourselves or only share it with others who are willing believers of the same thing. Or those who wish to discuss it.

See... like I said, passive.

The non-religious view...

Wouldn't this be better phrased as your view? The absence of a belief in deities or religions in general doesn't produce a uniform group structure that can stand up to the strong definitions you are applying here.

Being outside of the group of religious people does not mean that you are (by default) within the group of people sharing your views of good & evil.

I don't believe in any deities or religions, but I have my own personal standards of what good and evil are. Those standards don't require a deity or religion, but then again they also don't require anyone else to have the exact same standards.

The point being, there is a universe of non-religious views, not all of which match up with how you see the world around you. Remember to speak for yourself... we are all unique in this world.

 

[Jetfire]

Evil is as evil does...

The best way to say this is evil=wrong or a wrong act.

In this case Hitler was in fact wrong.

 

[iguana_tonante]

This is why labeling people as "good" and "evil" is a tremendous waste of time. It might make some of us feel morally superior or comfortable, but it accomplishes nothing.

There is nothing objective about concepts like "good" and "evil," and it dumbs down arguments to approach them that way.

Hitler did a lot of things that the vast majority of human beings consider objectionable--he ordered the deaths of millions of people, he instigated wars of aggression, he plundered from within his own population. By all accounts, he is no kind of role model and not someone anybody should endeavor to emulate. We should never forget what he did and why, or the consequences of his actions. To simply apply a label to him, to call him "evil," only diminishes the scale of his crimes, and assigns his actions to some external, mystical force.

Once you do that, it's easy to look at yourself and say, "I could never do anything like that, because I'm not an evil person." Well, anyone could do those things. We're all human. We need to be aware of history and aware of our own thoughts and not simply assume ourselves immune to such influences.

Very well said.

No one is completely good.

I disagree.

That's a good way to deny that person any responsibility, and is very dangerous. "This person is good, entirely, in eveything they do" is one of the biggest evils imaginable.

I agree wholeheartedly. Any time you let your critical thinking capitulate, you left yourself open for evil. The sleep of reason begets monsters.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I'm fed up saying this. You should really research this yourself. It's a very interesting subject. The word 'evil' is often used as synonymous with 'wicked' but it is an external force, which usually takes the personification of the devil or some other embodiment depending on the religion. You can guess what is the embodiment of 'good'. These forces guide all human behaviour. I'm not going to say any more because you are mixing up a general term with a specific term and don't appear to understand the point I was making.

As regards your 'person doing evil things but can't actually be evil'. THAT is a basic tenet of Christianity.

Hey, I get what you're saying, and I agree.

What people here seem to be missing is that "good" and "evil" are unquantifiable religious (or at least philosophical) concepts, whereas "morality" is essentially determined by consensus and is quantifiable. One can have morals without believing in "good" or "evil." Even so, morality is subjective, too--it's just something that we don't have to rely exclusively on religion to construct.

As you were implying, the only way "good" and "evil" can exist as absolutes is if there is some all-knowing, all-powerful being dictating what is good and what is evil, which makes the concepts inherently dependent on religious interpretation.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Evil is as evil does...

The best way to say this is evil=wrong or a wrong act.

In this case Hitler was in fact wrong.

But there's all sorts of wrong acts, and some are worse than others.

If I trip you, that's a wrong act, but is it evil?

Stealing is a wrong act no matter what, but is it more justifiable if I'm stealing to prevent my family's starvation rather than just stealing for the lulz?

And killing (acts of self-defense notwithstanding) is definitely wrong, but "evil" connotes a certain level of willful intent and absence of malice at the action; is the gang member who accidentally guns down grandma in a drive-by really on the same level as a serial killer? And can either of them be compared to a dictator who was ultimately responsible for the mass murder of between 11 and 17 million people?

 

[Franklin]

I'm fed up saying this. You should really research this yourself. It's a very interesting subject. The word 'evil' is often used as synonymous with 'wicked' but it is an external force, which usually takes the personification of the devil or some other embodiment depending on the religion. You can guess what is the embodiment of 'good'. These forces guide all human behaviour. I'm not going to say any more because you are mixing up a general term with a specific term and don't appear to understand the point I was making.

As regards your 'person doing evil things but can't actually be evil'. THAT is a basic tenet of Christianity.

Hey, I get what you're saying, and I agree.

What people here seem to be missing is that "good" and "evil" are unquantifiable religious (or at least philosophical) concepts, whereas "morality" is essentially determined by consensus and is quantifiable. One can have morals without believing in "good" or "evil." Even so, morality is subjective, too--it's just something that we don't have to rely exclusively on religion to construct.

As you were implying, the only way "good" and "evil" can exist as absolutes is if there is some all-knowing, all-powerful being dictating what is good and what is evil, which makes the concepts inherently dependent on religious interpretation.

I'm really stretching my mind back to my ungrad political theory days, here, but a strong argument can be made that the origin of the concept of evil is bound in ethics, not religion. And as such, it can be discussed outside of the realm of theology.
In ancient Greece, good and evil were equated with order and disorder. Whatever created disorder was evil. Codes of ethics determined how one should behave in order to maintain order. It was Socrates and Plato who began to discuss evil in moralistic terms, and Augustine first worked it into religious doctrine. I just don't think the concept of evil was created out of religion.

However, the problem of evil is a religious question (at least in Western religions). The most basic question is, if there is a God who is all good, all powerful, and all knowing, then why does He allow evil? Why do people murder? Why is there famine or plague? Why are there devastating natural disasters that create so much suffering? Why Hitler? Evil calls into question the nature and even existence of God. It must be explained, and that's why I think it's easy to think religion has a monopoly on much of the discussion of the term. But not all of it.
The moral components and causes of human-on-human evil can be discussed and explained by the behavioral sciences. The human misery created by natural disasters like earthquakes, hurricanes, tidal waves, and droughts can be explained by Earth sciences instead of saying they're willful acts put onto man by Evil with a capital E. No one blames Satan for earthquakes any more. Natural disasters have been completely secularized. In human behavior, evil also exists as a concept outside of religion. In other words, it's not a discussion of why evil exists, but an examination of evil as a given behavior.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I'm fed up saying this. You should really research this yourself. It's a very interesting subject. The word 'evil' is often used as synonymous with 'wicked' but it is an external force, which usually takes the personification of the devil or some other embodiment depending on the religion. You can guess what is the embodiment of 'good'. These forces guide all human behaviour. I'm not going to say any more because you are mixing up a general term with a specific term and don't appear to understand the point I was making.

As regards your 'person doing evil things but can't actually be evil'. THAT is a basic tenet of Christianity.

Hey, I get what you're saying, and I agree.

What people here seem to be missing is that "good" and "evil" are unquantifiable religious (or at least philosophical) concepts, whereas "morality" is essentially determined by consensus and is quantifiable. One can have morals without believing in "good" or "evil." Even so, morality is subjective, too--it's just something that we don't have to rely exclusively on religion to construct.

As you were implying, the only way "good" and "evil" can exist as absolutes is if there is some all-knowing, all-powerful being dictating what is good and what is evil, which makes the concepts inherently dependent on religious interpretation.

I'm really stretching my mind back to my ungrad political theory days, here, but a strong argument can be made that the origin of the concept of evil is bound in ethics, not religion. And as such, it can be discussed outside of the realm of theology.
In ancient Greece, good and evil were equated with order and disorder. Whatever created disorder was evil. Codes of ethics determined how one should behave in order to maintain order. It was Socrates and Plato who began to discuss evil in moralistic terms, and Augustine first worked it into religious doctrine. I just don't think the concept of evil was created out of religion.

However, the problem of evil is a religious question (at least in Western religions). The most basic question is, if there is a God who is all good, all powerful, and all knowing, then why does He allow evil? Why do people murder? Why is there famine or plague? Why are there devastating natural disasters that create so much suffering? Why Hitler? Evil calls into question the nature and even existence of God. It must be explained, and that's why I think it's easy to think religion has a monopoly on much of the discussion of the term. But not all of it.
The moral components and causes of human-on-human evil can be discussed and explained by the behavioral sciences. The human misery created by natural disasters like earthquakes, hurricanes, tidal waves, and droughts can be explained by Earth sciences instead of saying they're willful acts put onto man by Evil with a capital E. No one blames Satan for earthquakes any more. Natural disasters have been completely secularized. In human behavior, evil also exists as a concept outside of religion. In other words, it's not a discussion of why evil exists, but an examination of evil as a given behavior.

But even in terms of human behavior, what is "evil" is quite subjective. Some people think Hitler is one of the greatest heroes in human history! While they are a ridiculed minority, they do exist. Just because some of us think something is "evil" doesn't mean everyone does. Bring up something like abortion or war, and see how hard it is to get people to agree on what is "evil" and what isn't.

Even though people may not be deliberately invoking religion when they talk about evil, that is in fact what they're doing. Behavior may be concretely described as unlawful, destructive, disruptive to social order, but evil? That's always going to be up to interpretation, and there is simply no single authority on Earth that can dictate what is evil and what is not. That's what brings it back to a religious argument--something greater than us must be the arbiter of those distinctions.

The example you gave with the ancient Greeks actually helps make my point: they considered disorder evil, but that doesn't mean it is. Even today, we recognize some amount of disorder as beneficial to society. Definitions change. Subjective labels like "evil" serve very little purpose when analyzing motivation or consequences.

Your closing phrase, "evil as a given behavior," doesn't even make sense to me, because I cannot describe any particular behavior as objectively "evil." I could describe it as unethical within a given ethical framework, immoral by the standards of a given society, physically or emotionally destructive or disruptive, but not "evil."

 

[Jetfire]

Evil is as evil does...

The best way to say this is evil=wrong or a wrong act.

In this case Hitler was in fact wrong.

But there's all sorts of wrong acts, and some are worse than others.

If I trip you, that's a wrong act, but is it evil?

Stealing is a wrong act no matter what, but is it more justifiable if I'm stealing to prevent my family's starvation rather than just stealing for the lulz?

And killing (acts of self-defense notwithstanding) is definitely wrong, but "evil" connotes a certain level of willful intent and absence of malice at the action; is the gang member who accidentally guns down grandma in a drive-by really on the same level as a serial killer? And can either of them be compared to a dictator who was ultimately responsible for the mass murder of between 11 and 17 million people?

All wrong acts are evil...that is why they are wrong. I think you give someone more power than they deserve to have when you call them "evil" as if they are great enough to embody evil itself. I have no problem calling Hitler's actions evil...but I refuse to call him or anyone for that matter "Evil"...once again it gives them more power that what they deserve.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Evil is as evil does...

The best way to say this is evil=wrong or a wrong act.

In this case Hitler was in fact wrong.

But there's all sorts of wrong acts, and some are worse than others.

If I trip you, that's a wrong act, but is it evil?

Stealing is a wrong act no matter what, but is it more justifiable if I'm stealing to prevent my family's starvation rather than just stealing for the lulz?

And killing (acts of self-defense notwithstanding) is definitely wrong, but "evil" connotes a certain level of willful intent and absence of malice at the action; is the gang member who accidentally guns down grandma in a drive-by really on the same level as a serial killer? And can either of them be compared to a dictator who was ultimately responsible for the mass murder of between 11 and 17 million people?

All wrong acts are evil...that is why they are wrong. I think you give someone more power than they deserve to have when you call them "evil" as if they are great enough to embody evil itself. I have no problem calling Hitler's actions evil...but I refuse to call him or anyone for that matter "Evil"...once again it gives them more power that what they deserve.

That seems like a circular argument to me. "It is evil because it is wrong, and it is wrong because it is evil."

 

[crookeddy]

Evil is as evil does...

The best way to say this is evil=wrong or a wrong act.

In this case Hitler was in fact wrong.

Wrong about what?

 

[Franklin]

Even though people may not be deliberately invoking religion when they talk about evil, that is in fact what they're doing. Behavior may be concretely described as unlawful, destructive, disruptive to social order, but evil? That's always going to be up to interpretation, and there is simply no single authority on Earth that can dictate what is evil and what is not. That's what brings it back to a religious argument--something greater than us must be the arbiter of those distinctions.

The example you gave with the ancient Greeks actually helps make my point: they considered disorder evil, but that doesn't mean it is. Even today, we recognize some amount of disorder as beneficial to society. Definitions change. Subjective labels like "evil" serve very little purpose when analyzing motivation or consequences.

Your closing phrase, "evil as a given behavior," doesn't even make sense to me, because I cannot describe any particular behavior as objectively "evil." I could describe it as unethical within a given ethical framework, immoral by the standards of a given society, physically or emotionally destructive or disruptive, but not "evil."

You're basically saying it's up to God, or only the theologians, to define evil? No other definition would be valid?
Of course the term is subjective. And, if the Greeks considered disorder evil, who am I to say it wasn't? It certainly seems logical to me that a society would fear chaos and the things that come from it. Evil things can't come from chaos and disorder? Chaos and disorder are often the results of natural disasters, which some Christians even today blame on Evil. So, why shouldn't a society call disorder evil and try to prevent it?

Who "causes" these evil things, who wrought them upon the Earth, is a question for theologians. Making evil empirical and trying to explain it within the empirical world is the job of science.
Why God would let Hitler come to power is not an empirical quesiton. There is Evil in the world is an answer. How a man could become Adolph Hitler, how a society could fall under his spell, and why he acted as he did are empirical questions. And, it is a study of evil. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

Many political and social terms are subjective. What exactly is sociopathic behavior? What is paranoia? What is partisanship? There can be valid degress of each. So, just because evil is a subjective term doesn't mean there aren't reliable and valid definitions of it. Or even recognized variations in degress of it. The word "evil" gets overused, politicized, and has been watered-down in popular use. But if one wanted to really bear down and conceptualize and operationalize a scientifically reliable and valid definition, one could. Indeed, one could create several. All good.

If we dismiss all definitions as merely subjective, then we're saying the subject can't be discussed at all. We have no common ground other than just agreeing that it exists in an abstract form. In religion, this may be fine because it's the existence of evil itself that's more important than any one empirical defintion. Any evil, however defined, must be reconciled with the existence of God.

Pornography is hard to define. It is highly subjective. But we don't walk away from operationalizig it. We have legal defintions of it anyway. We dispute them, refine them as mores change, but we nonetheless have laws that are at least acceptable to a majority of those under the various jurisdictions which enforce them.

When I say, "Evil is a given behavior," I mean I can define the concept and operationalize it. That is the basis of any scientific method. It's not necessarily always about "why" evil exists. That is philosophical and theological.
Sometimes it's about explaining the manifestation of evil. It's employment, and how mankind got to that state. How what's evil even changes over time. Today, we would consider owning slaves evil. Yesterday, some people justified it by saying it was in the Bible.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Actually quite a few people have compared Obama to Mao, not to mention Che.

Oh look, the rabbit-fucking retard has returned!

 

[Pingfah]

Did you forget which forum you are in?