Topics Ethics

Question This is a difficult question to ask. But does the fact that Hitler had what could be described as noble intentions - he wanted to make the world what he thought would be a better place - in some way mitigate the moral repugnance of his actions?

Accepted:
May 12, 2009

Comments

I don't know if it mitigates it, but I think it's important to understand that, even people who do things as horrific as what Hitler did, very often do not think of themselves as doing anything wrong. Maybe Hitler is a bad example, as he is known to have been pretty nuts, but take Osama bin Laden. From what I've read, he is often described as quite charming and intelligent, and for all I know he's very kind to his various wives and children, generous to strangers, and so forth. But the dude has an axe to grind, and he thinks of himself as justified in grinding it. As for the innocents who die, collateral damage, you know? Or maybe they're not all so innocent, really.

And what of the people in the United States who condoned and even encouraged torture? They clearly didn't think they were doing anything wrong, and yet what they did was horrendously wrong. Vice President Cheney, so far as I am concerned, is guilty of war crimes, and he ought to be tried, convicted, and imprisoned forthwith. And yet, his daughters insist that he was a wonderful father, and for all I know he too is generous towards strangers and kind to children.

What's the point? It seems to me to be a common misconception that some people are just "evil", and they sit around thinking of all the bad things they can do, precisely because those things are bad. Well, that's not how it is. Hardly anyone thinks of him- or herself as a "bad person", and even people who do terrible things usually think that, if only you could understand things from their perspective, then you'd see that they were at least trying to do the right thing. So, in that sense, dang near everyone has "noble intentions", so far as I can see. The problem doesn't lie there. Where it does lie is a nice question. But it lies, at least in part, in people's extraordinary ability to justify things to themselves and, in the process, to ignore values and truths they do indeed know but are, for convenience or pure self-interest, prepared to set aside.

Just to be clear. I am not saying that Dick Cheney's actions were "morally equivalent" to Hitler's, or bin Laden's, or anyone else's for that matter. But those who raise the banner of moral inequivalence are, to my mind, usually hiding behind exactly the sorts of self-justifying delusions I have just been lamenting. The fact that Cheney's actions were not "morally equivalent" to Hitler's is completely irrelevant, because, even if they were not, it simply does not follow that Cheney's actions were not morally repugnant. The same goes in many other cases.

Question This is a difficult question to ask. But does the fact that Hitler had what could be described as noble intentions - he wanted to make the world what he thought would be a better place - in some way mitigate the moral repugnance of his actions? Accepted:May 12, 2009

Question This is a difficult question to ask. But does the fact that Hitler had what could be described as noble intentions - he wanted to make the world what he thought would be a better place - in some way mitigate the moral repugnance of his actions?

Accepted:
May 12, 2009