Forums Loading, stand by... HOME

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

Never!!! *PIC*

Posted By: Archer »–)› (AST002-2.msns.sm.ptd.net)
Date: 6/5/2003 at 10:51 p.m.

In Response To: Re: So, we need a topic...Lets try this? (greygelgoog)

: One thing to consider is not so much whether a nation has
: the right to, but whether or not it should. I'm afraid
: I'll come across as a fascist for saying this, but
: here goes: "Rights" are defined by
: authority. You have human and civil rights because
: those in authority choose to recognize them. Authority
: is derived from force, the ability to control you
: through coercion or whatever. Simply put, might (God
: help us) makes right. One nation can have the right to
: invade another simply because no higher authority
: takes action to stop it.

Never!!! *Draws his rapier and motions with it emphatically.* You've called upon the quixotic knight in me to utterly disagree. Rightness, correctness is a concept that is constantly sought and striven for by a knight, by a chevalier. Perfect virtue is an unattainable goal, to do completely right all the time (such is the domain of perfect goodness, which equals divinity, or God). Neverthless, that in no way means we should ignore the existence of goodness.

That goodness is subjective is nonsense, or that might makes right. There are three aspects to an action; the impetus to the act, the means with which the act was carried out, and the outcome of the act. Typically (this is very general), if two of the three aspects of the act are positive, then the act itself can usually be deemed a "good" one.

For instance, Hitler had the impetus to do what in his distorted perception was right, to bring the godlike Aryans to the fore — where he thought they belonged. If it were true that the Aryan people were somehow superior to the "animals" of the rest of the world, it might be rational and a good thing... On the more moderate end of this, he just wanted to make life better for his people.

On the whole, he did do that, especially with improving the economy so drastically. But, the economy became so good because the country was preparing for war, and was at war. Indeed, Hitler's philosophy was to keep the nation constantly at war, because it's so good for the economy.

So though there was one good outcome of the economy, which was destroyed again when Germany collapsed, the impetus was ambiguously good, the means were atrocious, with war on the world and the torture and slaughter of six million Jews, and the end result was sixty-one million people dead. I think judging Hitler's action as a "bad" one is therefore rather fair, and a good point of reference.

Messages In This Thread

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

For your own future enjoyment, please report any major forum abusers or cgi errors so we can remedy the problem. If you have any questions email us.

The Asylum

The Asylum is maintained by Myth Admin with WebBBS 5.12.