: 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.
Did someone argue something like this at some point?
: Moreover, the destruction of evil IS good and, contrary
: to your post, does NOT rely at all
We have to know if we actually fighting evil, or not, or we might be doing evil.
: Whether or not we are correct about who is good and who
: is evil, it is nonetheless good to reduce evil.
no question there. Evil must not exist, now to define 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.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with assuming good is equal to fighting evil, as long as we remember that it's not totally true.
: 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. ; )
True detection of evil would convict...someone who murders, rapes, masacures, tortures, etc...
Seraph
