jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (112 posts)

What kind on a man Adolf Hitler was???

  1. God made science profile image58
    God made scienceposted 4 years ago

    I mean, Good and Bad are relative. So, when American soldiers kill Iraqi civilians, that's OK. When Bin Laden destroys WT Centre, that's bad? I mean, how do you define a universal moral principle?

    1. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You don't. You simply attempt to live your life without intentionally harming others. Of course, this would require a chain reaction across all peoples, we would need to be unified on the concept of not harming one another. Therein lies the problem, the perception of Good and Bad are relative as in your examples.

      1. God made science profile image58
        God made scienceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That is the problem. SOME folks will deny to accept to be united with *us*, on the subject of 'the concept of not harming one another' lol

        1. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Of course not, when you create an "us" and "them" environment, you've already alienated others.

          1. God made science profile image58
            God made scienceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Some people will just tell you they don't like to be united with your universal agenda lol

            1. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              In other words, they DO wish to go out intentionally harming others? If so, why would you believe that?

              1. God made science profile image58
                God made scienceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, they may hurt others. That is what police do, soldiers do, don't they?  What are you going to do when they deny your peace agenda? lol

                1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I have no idea what you're talking about.

                  1. God is in kitchen profile image61
                    God is in kitchenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    It's difficult to have that. That is it.

                  2. God is in kitchen profile image61
                    God is in kitchenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The thing is, police will open fire on you if you are breaking law, and trying to escape. A soldier has free license to kill anyone during war. What are you going to do to them? lol

      2. Don W profile image80
        Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Playing devils advocate, what if intentionally harming 1 person (say Adolf Hitler) could save the lives of millions of people? If you intentionally harm him, that invalidates your moral principle. If you don't, isn't that the equivalent of harming millions of people?

        1. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Stopping Hitler from harming millions of people does not mean one has to resort to harming him. There are many alternatives to harming others.

          1. Don W profile image80
            Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Fair enough. Putting that moral principle to the test a bit more. Someone knows the location of a nuclear device set to go off in New York. We've exhausted every avenue of enquiry and failed to get the location. There is not enough time to evacuate the city. We know we can get the location by torturing the person. If we do it, we've deliberately harmed an individual. If we don't we've wiped out New York. What do we do?

            1. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              And, you know that how?

              1. Don W profile image80
                Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Hey man it's a thought experiment. I know it because it's one of the parameters I choose to be part of the experiment smile

                If it makes it any better, let's say we've done a psyche evaluation and the conclusion is that there is a 96.2% chance this person will cooperate under torture conditions. Do we torture him to get the location of the bomb?

                1. God is in kitchen profile image61
                  God is in kitchenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Suppose, he is your brother -- will you still torture him? It's relative.       LOLOLOLOL lol

                2. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  What I find interesting is that such thought experiments must be created with very specific conditions contained within an extremely rare scenario in order to attempt to refute a claim, even when the conditions aren't necessarily going to work and other alternatives are not presented.

                  So, if we were talking about percentages and comparing your thought experiment to the real world, the scenario would have a.00000000000000000000000000001% of ever occurring and even smaller percentage of having to use harm or violence as a working solution.

                  1. Don W profile image80
                    Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You have proposed a moral principle: "live your life without intentionally harming others". I'm examining the consequences of applying that moral principle to a given scenario. The specific scenario is irrelevant. The important part is the question posed by it: what do you do when alternatives have failed or are unavailable, and failing to intentionally harm someone will result in harm to yourself or others? If you suggest there are no real-life scenarios like this, then I'm sorry but I won't be able to take you seriously.

                    The conclusion I draw is that your moral principle would not be the right behaviour in certain circumstances. And that's what I see as the problem with absolute moral principles. There are always exceptional circumstances. To address that you would have to change your principle to: live your life without intentionally harming others (unless harming others is necessary to prevent harm to yourself or others, and all alternatives have failed or are unavailable to you).

                    Maybe this shows it's not that that helpful to be prescriptive when dealing with moral codes. Perhaps generic principles that instil in people the ability to make ethical decisions would be more useful. That way it doesn't matter what the scenario is. People would be equipped to make ethical judgements in any given situation.

          2. profile image0
            Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So, politely requesting that he stop the insanity might have worked? Man, where were you during the World War? If only the Allied Powers had been privy to such sage wisdom. Think of the lives that could have been saved.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I see you continue to put words in others mouths to support your arguments. Well done. lol

              1. profile image0
                Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Well, your statement was pretty pointless and self serving. So, a flippant response seemed appropriate. If you would be so kind as to explain how anyone in opposition to Hitler could have formulated a plan to help him stop harming others, which didn't also include either a plan to put his health and well being in jeopardy or acquiescing to his desire to dominate? The more detailed the better since between all of the world powers of that time no one came up with a grand solution. You could be doing the world a humongous favor by offering a detailed map to reference if we are faced with such a problem again. smile

                1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Flippant responses are your forte, they have nothing to do with me.



                  Again, there are alternatives to harming people. If you don't believe there are, then I suspect the first thing you'd do is drop a bomb, yes?

                  1. profile image0
                    Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't, presently, own any bombs so no; that isn't an option I have access to. But, seriously. Are you so naive as to think all global solutions can always be void of violence?

                    You claim a 'do no harm' philosophy. Sometimes, doing nothing is, itself, harmful and breeds violence by its very use. How many have starved in North Korea because of sanctions? How many have died from genocides within the borders of nations because the world chose to do nothing? How many Kurds were poisoned because no one would act?

                    As long as governments will choose violence, violence will exist. And, unfortunately the choice to react with violence is sometimes necessary to either stop it, or stop it from spreading.

                    I only support the notion of war when its only goal would be to save lives that would be lost otherwise.

          3. Chris Neal profile image82
            Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Historically speaking, there was no way to stop Hitler without harming him. He seemed to lead some kind of charmed life until the end. He survived many attempts on his life, there is even a story of one time during WWI when he was in the trenches eating a meal with some fellow soldiers, then for no apparent reason got up and moved to another table. Moments later a bomb landed in the bunker and blew up the table he'd been sitting at, killing everyone at it.

            And, like many of the Nazi leaders, he committed suicide rather than face capture. Even if someone could have gotten into his bunker and taken him, the only way to do it would have been to physically incapacitate him, which would have in all likelihood required harming him.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              He could have been captured and incarcerated, and the war would have been over. Wasn't Hussein captured?

              1. Chris Neal profile image82
                Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, but that's not a realistic comparison. Hussein had Iraq, and not even all of Iraq, working for him. Htiler would have had all of Germany protecting him. They took their orders. And 1945 was a very different time than the early 21st century.

                Besides, people did try to capture or kill Hitler. He escaped numerous assassination attempts. Tom Cruise, that great repository of historical knowledge, made  that Valkyrie movie about the most famous of the attempts. Hussein I'm sure survived some, but Hitler really did seem to lead a charmed life.

      3. Chris Neal profile image82
        Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well said.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks Chris. By the by, I hope you are feeling much better these days.

          1. Chris Neal profile image82
            Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Thank you. I wouldn't say I'm feeling much better. It's still pretty shaky. But it's better. Thank you.

  2. grand old lady profile image90
    grand old ladyposted 4 years ago

    I think a universal moral principle is that we should try to love all people. However, the realities of our world make this universal principle fail to prevail because circumstances differ in many instances. It's wrong for American soldiers to kill Iraqi civilians. The 911 tragedy was also wrong. However, there are complications in both situations. In Iraq if you refer to the invasion of Kuwait, a state of war was declared. It doesn't justify killing civilians but sadly, it is going to happen, as it did on both sides. Meaning, Kuwaiti citizens and Iraqi citizens. For the terrorists, there is also a state of war existing. making 911 occur as an act of Jihad. What is sad is, they deliberately targeted civilians, including many Muslims.

    Regarding Adolf Hitler, you know, I was surprised at how beautiful his paintings were. I would have liked to keep some of them and hang them on my wall. He was not accepted in an art school though, because he couldn't paint the human body. It strikes me that the man behind the holocaust had this artistic gift. Still, there is no justification for what he did in his hope to create a superior Aryan race, which involved not just killing Jews but also disabled people, etc. who did not fit his vision of a perfect Aryan person.

    If he had more love in him, Hitler could probably feel more sympathy for those who are less perfect, and not feel so angry by the fact that the Jews were so rich. I mean, Mitt Romney is extraordinarily rich and a lot of people are voting for him. Obama is far less rich, but still rich, and a lot of people are voting for him, too.

    We don't have to be perfect people or saints, but if we -- Iraqis, terrorists, Americans, Filipinos (like me) and everyone else in the world and most especially politicians and civilians in political organizations could in their decisions, especially political decisions, tip the balance and decide to love, maybe there would be less need for states of war.

    1. God made science profile image58
      God made scienceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The point is that it is difficult to establish.

      Hitler, if he were caught alive, would have been killed. Bin Laden, caught alive, was killed. If George W Bush were caught alive, SOME people would have killed him. It's all relative.

      1. grand old lady profile image90
        grand old ladyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I understand what you are saying. However, there is a difference between situational ethics, and having a set of ethics that guide and direct your response per situation. Since we live in an imperfect world, a universal moral may exist, but oftentimes we have to make the best of the imperfections that life hands us, and our ethics guide and anchor our decisions and choices.

        1. God made science profile image58
          God made scienceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          A universal moral does not exist. It's not possible to establish anything like that. How would you establish such a thing? Then you have to make a law, or something like that which forces people to observe morality.

          Even if observing morality becomes a legal obligation, how would you implement that?

          1. grand old lady profile image90
            grand old ladyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If it has to be established, made a law, or a legal obligation then it's not a universal moral. Universal morals have to be arrived at by choice. But I think universally, people want to love and be loved. That's why they make families. And that's just a portion of where love can extend to. It is a universal desire but it doesn't always drive people's choices, for individual reasons.

      2. lone77star profile image91
        lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I agree that a moral foundation is difficult to establish in practice, but your example of relativism shows the weakness of such an approach.

        All were guilty of crimes when seen through the eyes of one certain group or another.

        But I would say that what Hitler, Bin Laden and Bush did were all wrong.

        I'm an American. Heck, I'm even from Texas, but I'm disgusted with Bush and his family.

        Invading Iraq was something they had wanted to do for a long time. They were itching to do it. WMDs was just a big lie. Even 9/11 was a big lie. It had nothing to do with Iraq.

        When the world found this out, what did George W. do? He laughed!

        Let that sink in for a moment!

        George W. laughed. "What? No WMDs here. Hahahaha!"

        And all the while our own troops were dying, and tens of thousands of men, women and children were dying in a war started on a batch of lies.

        We didn't pull out and say "sorry!" No, Halliburton was installed and couldn't be removed! Dick Cheney's profits would dry up.

        Jesus said something very simple and profound. You can judge a tree by the fruit it bears.

        If a man creates death and destruction, then he is not an advocate of civilization. In fact, I'd dare say that he is an evil man.

        And look what Obama has done. More of the same death and destruction. His sweet words do not change the actions into something "patriotic." Tyranny and murder are no better if you give them a sweet sounding name.

        Moral relativisim is corrupt. What's good for the hunter isn't good for the duck.

        But if we love one another. That's absolute. Anyone caught doing something incompatible with that is getting off track. When I yell at my nephew, I'm losing my cool (my love). I'm being impatient, rather than loving. With love, I would give of my time and talk to him. If I am selfish, then I will think my time is important and will become frustrated with my young nephews boyish destruction.

        Moral relativism is not the answer. Love is.

  3. ptosis profile image77
    ptosisposted 4 years ago

    Hitler personal habits makes me scared of people who think they are holier than others when they:
    1)Are a vegetarian
    2)Never swear
    3)Never smoke
    4)Never drink

    I trust somebody who is a hard-drinking/chain-smoking swearing meat-eater better.

    1. lone77star profile image91
      lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The problem isn't personal habits. It's ego.

      Ego produces selfish fruit. Hitler murdered, lied and started wars.

      You can know a tree by the fruit it bears.

      Moral relativism tells us that what is good for the hunter is not necessarily good for the duck.

      But love is the answer. Love is absolute and unconditional.

      If Hitler had only love and no selfishness, what would he have done? What would his "fruit" have been?

      1. A Troubled Man profile image61
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        LOL! An explanation to everything. lol

    2. Chris Neal profile image82
      Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well, I've got three of your four most feared traits there (I eat meat) and I gotta say, are you crazy? (Of course, I mean that in the nicest possible way... wink) You look at a literal handful of the man's outward habits and decide you'd rather trust people who go the other way? Mother Theresa didn't drink, smoke, or curse and I'd take her in a minute over Bill Clinton, who does all three. (That's not a political statement about Clinton, BTW. Substitute a name, Condoleeza Rice for instance, or Kennedy or Nixon or Roosevelt or Churchill.)

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know Chris, he may be onto something. When one tries to control his subconscious too much it rebels. I'll give some examples.

        Jack Schaap
        Kong Hee
        Jason Russell
        David Yonggi Cho
        Allan Cundick
        Albert Odulele
        Stephen Green
        Jimmy Swaggart, Marvin Gorman, Jim and Tammy Bakker

        This list goes on and on.

        1. Chris Neal profile image82
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Okay, what about Manson? Bundy? Gacy?

          I mean if that's your criteria, I got names too.

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Look, I'm not at all saying Christians are more amoral than Atheists. I'm saying when one tries to hard to control all the impulses of the subconscious the subconscious tries harder to get what it wants and it also works the other way around as well. Party and act like a stupid for a while and you'll end up spending Sunday in Church.

      2. kathleenkat profile image85
        kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well, surely you don't think you're better/holier than others for not indulging wink

        1. Chris Neal profile image82
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No, I don't. In fact, the teatotaling and non-smoking didn't come from being a Christian. I grew up in a house of smokers and just never had the desire (pretty good thing, too, since I'm mildly asthmatic.) And I just never enjoyed drinking. Being drunk is not a fun experience for me.

          The cursing, on the other hand, I had to work at controlling. I'm certainly not any holier than anyone else.

  4. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 4 years ago

    Universal morals have already been established for people who have elevated themselves above barbarians.

    Is it OK to do any of the following:

    * Is it OK to murder?
    * Is it OK to steal?
    * Is it OK to lie?
    * Is it OK to torture?

    These things don't simply apply it to a world they apply to every generation born of human status.

    Of course there will be people who will try and knit kick these issues to death but generally intelligent people will accept the idea that all of above is wrong to do.

    1. God is in kitchen profile image61
      God is in kitchenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      * Is it OK to murder? = The police kills people if they are breaking laws                  and trying to escape etc.

      * Is it OK to steal? = do you know what the government does with tax money?

      * Is it OK to lie? = Watch any George W Bush speech

      * Is it OK to torture? = Did you hear about guantanamo




      Are these people BARBARIANS?

  5. profile image0
    Rad Manposted 4 years ago

    What kind of man was Hitler? He was a Christian man.

    1. grand old lady profile image90
      grand old ladyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      He was born and raised as a Catholic but later did not embrace any faith.

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Perhaps you should read his book.

        1. grand old lady profile image90
          grand old ladyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe Goebbels wrote it for him....

          1. Chris Neal profile image82
            Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            He actually dictated it to Hess. Go figure.

        2. Chris Neal profile image82
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You mean that the man who has famously said the bigger the lie the more people will believe it should be believed about everything he wrote?

      2. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Sure he did. He did what he did to the Jews to get back at them for killing Jesus.

        1. grand old lady profile image90
          grand old ladyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I think the whole Hitler deal was about having a choice between Hitler and Communism. At the time, Hitler didn't show his true colors, he unfolded them as he continued to gain power. The hatred of the Jews was more due to a general prejudice against the Jews, plus the fact that the Jews pretty much held the German economy at that time.

    2. Chris Neal profile image82
      Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wanna bet?

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I didn't say he was a good Christian. Many Christians in Europe at that time disliked Jewish people for two reasons. 1. It was thought they were stalling the economy by holding onto their money. 2. Jesus was killed by Jews and many wanted revenge, Hitler thought he would be rewarded in heaven.

        This is information from family who grew up in wartime Italy.

        1. Chris Neal profile image82
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I was with you up to that last part. Hitler hated Christianity. H-A-T-E-D Christianity. This has been well documented, even as far back as the 1960's book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." He had plans drawn up to start destroying churches and would have started carrying that out had the allies not invaded Germany when they did.

          He wasn't worried about Heavenly reward.

          But yes, many Christians hated Jews, not least because of the reasons you stated.

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hitler did not hate Christianity, he hated the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and had plans to reorganize it from the top down.

            1. Chris Neal profile image82
              Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, he did. He also had plans to reorganize and control the Protestant church. That's why Boehnoffer was killed. And he did have plans to destroy churches. And he stated he hated Christianity. This is all a matter of historical record. Hitler (other than his baptism, maybe) had not a single truly Christian even in his life or in his soul.

              1. profile image0
                Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Nazi General Gerhard Engel reported in his diary that in 1941 Hitler stated, "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

                There is a lot of conflicting information, but his actions against Jewish people and his reasons for those actions indicate he wanted revenge for the killing of Jesus. You may not see this as being Christian, but a follower of Jesus is a Christian.

                1. Chris Neal profile image82
                  Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm sorry but the overwhelming evidence is that Hitler hated Christianity. He had the Bible rewritten. He lied, often, openly and with gusto. To everyone and anyone.  He didn't like Jesus and in the Nazi Bible had His Jewish roots removed. And he said he hated Christianity.

                  If Hitler ever said he was a Christian (and again, he was a practiced and professed liar, so I have no reason to doubt that he told many people he was Christian) it was a lie.

                  1. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Then how do you know what his truth was? He said he was a Christian and his actions proved it. If he rewrote the bible with Jesus still in it, then he was a follower of Jesus.

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Hitler also recommended babies be given milk instead of beer and he started the first anti-smoking campaigns. He also breathed oxygen and was a vegetarian. smile

  6. profile image59
    chezzamcposted 4 years ago

    Is this topic serious? I am new to hubpages and assumed it was for good writers, but sorry - 'What kind on a man Adolf Hitler was???'
    Shouldn't that read - 'What kind OF a man WAS Adolf Hitler???'
    Sorry I don't mean to be offensive, but I expect correct, proper grammar!

  7. kathleenkat profile image85
    kathleenkatposted 4 years ago

    A lot of people liked Hitler. Wasn't he on the cover of Time at one point? I think the power corrupted him, though he may have had okay intentions to begin with.

    Your title kind of mislead me. But as I see how this is a discussion of the defintion between "good" and "bad," I'll chime in:

    You are right in saying that this line is very arbitrary, and moves around a lot. I might think tax evasion is perfectly okay, but someone else might think it's not. Of course, we can have laws which define stuff like this. But in that regard, every country has different laws. I don't think it's okay to shoot someone in war, or in any situation. But if they are being attacked, lethally, I would assume that shooting is a prudent course of action. Bin Laden wasn't being attacked, so, in my mind, he was not right to kill all those people. They weren't attacking him.

    We probably wouldn't have guns if everyone had the same definition of good and evil, am I right?

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
      Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      He was on the cover of Time but not because he was admired.

      "On January 2, 1939, Time Magazine published its annual Man of the Year issue. For the year 1938, Time had chosen Adolf Hitler as the man who "for better or worse" (as Time founder Henry Luce expressed it) had most influenced events of the preceding year.

      The cover picture featured Hitler playing "his hymn of hate in a desecrated cathedral while victims dangle on a St. Catherine's wheel and the Nazi hierarchy looks on." This picture was drawn by Baron Rudolph Charles von Ripper, a German Catholic who had fled Hitler's Germany."

      1. kathleenkat profile image85
        kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I did not know that about the Time thing. Thanks for the interesting information, there!

        Anyway, I truly believe at some point, some amount of people liked Hitler. He did, after all, rise to power somehow. It's hard to rise to power with no amount of likeability. I recall from a history class that the German people liked Hitler, at first. That he was a socialist that would bring them out of the struggles brought on by WWI. They, of course, eventually changed their minds.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
          Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Sure, some thought he was the best thing to get Germany out of it's economic woes. They were willing to elect anyone they thought could make them rich...

 
working