Was Hitler actually evil?

[Roshi]

Or Charles Chaplin...

 

[Roger Wilco]

Didn't Chaplin grow his moustache that way specifically to mock Hitler?

 

[Jetfire]

^
Chaplin & Hardy had it before Adolf Hitler.

 

[Franklin]

Here's a moral quandary for you -- How do evilness and mental disorders go together? Hitler was obviously off his rocker; insanity of some kind and probably a good deal of depression not to admit anti-social personality and what not. But can a person be evil if they're insane? I'm not saying Adolf should be forgiven because he was crazy -- all philosophy aside, he deserved the fullest punishment possible by law. But is it more evil for an insane person to murder, or more evil for a non-insane person to murder? Or is just the action evil?

Mein Kampf was written by an angry man, but not an insane one. Hitler was a megalomaniac, and as Bertrand Russell believes, there is some lunacy in many megalomaniacs, but Hitler's thoughts and ideas were coldly and rationally calcuated and presented in that book. Mein Kampf was a distressingly popular book, selling many copies before Hitler became chancellor, and millions more after that. Too many Germans agreed with a lot of the arguments for it to be dismissed as the rants of an insane man. And, the book is full of evil.
During Hitler's pursuance of the goals he laid out in the book, lunacy and irrationality overtook him as it became clear that he would not fulfill his dreams. But, I think most of Hitler's evil came from a cold and rational mind. Albeit a mind that was full of immorality or downright amoral.

 

[Deckerd]

Evil is a religious term. I suppose someone has already pointed this out somewhere upthread. So the specific question can only be answered by religious people.

 

[Franklin]

Evil is a religious term. I suppose someone has already pointed this out somewhere upthread. So the specific question can only be answered by religious people.

You mean solely a religious term? It is a subjective term. And, it is related to morality, which is discussed by many religions. But surely evil is a secular term, too. People doing harm to one another is evil in a religious or secular sense.

 

[Deckerd]

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

 

[gturner]

Religion discusses evil because people were dealing the concept of evil long before current religions were established. Put another way, why do all kinds of non-religious or anti-religious people run around screaming that Exxon is evil?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Franklin]

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.

"Good" and "evil" are certainly important religous concepts, but I simply can't imagine why a discussion of them must be done solely with the context of religion. Unless, as RoJoHen said above, religion predates morality (which I doubt). Secular people are (or can be) moral. Evil is an important concept to them, too.

Is there no objective or secular way of discussing the idea of an individual doing harm to another individual?

This is an interesting point of view, Deckerd. I'm trying to get my head wrapped around it.

 

[crookeddy]

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.

 

[ST-One]

Mein Kampf was written by an angry man, but not an insane one. Hitler was a megalomaniac, and as Bertrand Russell believes, there is some lunacy in many megalomaniacs, but Hitler's thoughts and ideas were coldly and rationally calcuated and presented in that book. Mein Kampf was a distressingly popular book, selling many copies before Hitler became chancellor, and millions more after that.

300.000 over the course of eight years... doesn't sound that much to me.
And that there was a total circulation after nearly twenty years isn't also all that much if you consider that it was gifted to newly-wed couples.

I newer felt the urge to read that book, but considering its author I don't think it'd be a pleasant read...

 

[Franklin]

Mein Kampf was written by an angry man, but not an insane one. Hitler was a megalomaniac, and as Bertrand Russell believes, there is some lunacy in many megalomaniacs, but Hitler's thoughts and ideas were coldly and rationally calcuated and presented in that book. Mein Kampf was a distressingly popular book, selling many copies before Hitler became chancellor, and millions more after that.

300.000 over the course of eight years... doesn't sound that much to me.
And that there was a total circulation after nearly twenty years isn't also all that much if you consider that it was gifted to newly-wed couples.

I newer felt the urge to read that book, but considering its author I don't think it'd be a pleasant read...

Yeah. I suppose the figure is relative. Still 250,000 to 300,000 copies of a book full of such bile. And one has to wonder how many of the folks for whom the book was a "gift" actually broke it open. It was probably just fashionable (or safe) to own a copy.
But there were more sales internationally. Alan Cranston published an English-language abridged version (most of the inflammatory stuff was removed) that sold 500,000 copies before Hitler sued Cranston for copyright infringement in 1939.

I have to admit that I've never felt the urge to read the book, either. I've read parts, but small ones, and that's all. Which is kind of sad for a person in my profession.

 

[Roger Wilco]

And one has to wonder how many of the folks for whom the book was a "gift" actually broke it open. It was probably just fashionable (or safe) to own a copy.

I bet not that many. I've read and I can honestly say that it's for sure in my top10 of crappiest books I've ever read, it's incredibly long-winded, convoluted and boring.

 

[ST-One]

Mein Kampf was written by an angry man, but not an insane one. Hitler was a megalomaniac, and as Bertrand Russell believes, there is some lunacy in many megalomaniacs, but Hitler's thoughts and ideas were coldly and rationally calcuated and presented in that book. Mein Kampf was a distressingly popular book, selling many copies before Hitler became chancellor, and millions more after that.

300.000 over the course of eight years... doesn't sound that much to me.
And that there was a total circulation after nearly twenty years isn't also all that much if you consider that it was gifted to newly-wed couples.

I newer felt the urge to read that book, but considering its author I don't think it'd be a pleasant read...

Yeah. I suppose the figure is relative. Still 250,000 to 300,000 copies of a book full of such bile. And one has to wonder how many of the folks for whom the book was a "gift" actually broke it open. It was probably just fashionable (or safe) to own a copy.
But there were more sales internationally. Alan Cranston published an English-language abridged version (most of the inflammatory stuff was removed) that sold 500,000 copies before Hitler sued Cranston for copyright infringement in 1939.

I have to admit that I've never felt the urge to read the book, either. I've read parts, but small ones, and that's all. Which is kind of sad for a person in my profession.

I forgot to add the number of the total circulation: 10.000.000

 

[Franklin]

The prose are crappy, but serious. That's the problem. The entire blueprint for the future was there. The sad thing is Mein Kampf wasn't taken more seriously by Hitler's opponents outside and inside Germany at the time. Too many people laughed Hitler off as a joke until it was too late.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Yes. And the people who did take him seriously were laughed at also...

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Well most people in the English-speaking world probably thought it was a book about camping.

 

[Bears Discover Fire]

Other people Hitler generally disliked:
...
Jehovah's Witnesses
...

So he had good taste, then.

So you approve of him gassing and beheading 5,000+ of them in concentration camps?

Classy.