: Here is where we begin to
: move into a double standard. We call Hitler evil
: because he sought to destroy those who he
: (incorrectly) saw as evil. At the same time, we claim
: that the destruction of evil is in itself good. But
: this relies entirely on the assumption that we are
: right in our assertations of what constitutes evil and
: who fits with these definitions. If these assertations
: are incorrect (as seems likely, given that there are
: about as many definitions of "evil" are
: there are people to vioce these definitions), then, by
: our own argument, that would make us evil ourselves.
There are objective reasons that Hitler's actions were wrong. For example, it is wrong to reason that an entire race of people is evil and ought to be exterminated. Not only is Hitler wrong for believing this, but similarly Hitler's enemies would be wrong to conclude that all Germans ought to be exterminated.
Moreover, the destruction of evil IS good and, contrary to your post, does NOT rely at all
: on the assumption that we are
: right in our assertations of what constitutes evil and
: who fits with these definitions.
Whether or not we are correct about who is good and who is evil, it is nonetheless good to reduce evil.
Now, to be sure, true detection of evil is important in the task of destroying evil, but the fact that we can never be absolutely certain of who is evil (as we cannot be absolutely certain of virtually anything) does NOT imply moral equivalence, or that calling Hitler evil but his enemies good is applying a double standard.
And as I noted above, true detection of evil isn't always as hard as you might like to pretend it is when waging conversatioal repartee on forum boards. ; )
