This. I hate to break it to you, but most Nazi’s thought they were the good guys.
That is probably why, Disposable Hero, your debate never got anywhere.
The older I get, the more I view idealism, for whatever cause, as inherently bad.
Idealism, by definition, values an ideal over actual human suffering. Idealism usually pictures a paradise for the many, a paradise just around the corner. But to get into paradise, we need to get our hands dirty today, for juuust one more day.
The Nazi’s did that when they disposed of those economy-strangling, gene pool polluting Jews and took back what they stole for the regular German guys.
The Dutch did that when they brought “civilization” to their colonies in Indonesia, (by pumping it dry) as well as wealth to the home country.
The US did that when they brought democracy to Iraq, and saved the world from communism by interfering in Latin American and Asian governments.
In hindsight, all of these actions are very morally questionable. It would be naive to say that idealism was the main reason for all of these actions. But idealism would most certainly have been the main reason many good people fought for these fights and gave their life for them. So yes, Disposable Hero, not only is it possible that a good person fights for an evil cause, it happens all the damn time.
Of course morality itself is a subject of great debate. Personally I’d argue that the morality of our actions should be based on intentions, not outcomes, though I accept that as a practical matter society must focus more on the outcomes.
Certainly good people in a state of ignorance can do evil, and I don’t think it is always valid to argue “they should have investigated more”.
If it turns out the US government was anal probing people at the pentagon, are all american citizens culpable, for propping up the regime?
And in the Nazi example, just asking questions could well have got you shot.
And another example might be people campaigning against MMR: they may think they’re doing good and they may think they’ve researched the matter – by reading cites sent to them by friends. They don’t know much about critical reasoning, so they don’t appreciate the flaws in their approach. It’s an “unknown unknown”.
A good person can’t fight for a evil cause by default. God is the only one who is good so a good person would always be God acting through that person - that good person would be a child of God, who is God himself as Jesus is God. God can’t sin, so a good person can’t sin (thanks to God the Father’s ability to control everything, including spacetime, to make everything good).
But a child of God can be in evil organization, sort of a secret agent of sorts. and preform the acts of that evil organization, but as promised God the Father will turn everything that this child does for the good, though it may take time to see it.
This is a process of how God the Father topples evil power structures in this world that Satan has set up, and is the reason He sent His Child into the world, that Satan’s control of it would eventually end.
I’m from Northern Ireland and while there are indeed many situations where good/evil is not really an appropriate measure of things there are also situations where it is.
Personally I don’t find much moral ambiguity between, for example, a nurse dealing professionally and compassionately with a sick patient and a terrorist setting off a carbomb in a heavily populated shopping area with little or no warning. I don’t care about the latters justifications, one is an act of good, the other is an act of evil. Simple as.
But maybe thats just me.
And I’d really like to hear about the moral ambuigity between the well known acts of the Nazi’s, to use an example that has come up often in this thread. That is one war, possibly the only one, where one side really was on the side of the angels, for all their flaws, and the other really were the bad guys.
I did say the ‘good guys’ were very heavily flawed, its hard to view carpet-bombing cities, for example, as a noble act, necessary as it may have been and the courage of the bomber crews not being in question.
It was an extremely condensed account of World War II. I suppose I meant (if I can self-analyze my post) the Allies were on the right side of history and the Axis were on the wrong side of history. What did you think I meant?
I think it’s entirely possible, although I don’t know if it’s as clear-cut as people are making it to be.
Many times, the perceptions of the people at the bottom combined with the propaganda that the “evil” cause is spouting give the impression that it’s the right thing to fight on the side of that cause. For example, I bet most German Army personnel, draftee or not, probably believed they were fighting for Germany, and against communism for some portion of the war, and as it turned against Germany, it was clearly a fight for their homes and families, regardless of the ideologies in play.
Same thing for the Confederate soldiers- back then, people had a LOT more allegiance to their States than we do today, and to that end, they signed up to fight for their states, not to defend slavery, keep the black man down or anything like that. And after some certain point, it was fighting for home and family.
So, were the IRA evil or good? Every one who worked with them? Sinn Fein? Gerry Adams? What about them?
How about the Brits – evil or good? Every one who worked with them?
I find your view on good/evil even more baffling, given where you’re from.
Anyway, I agree with other posters that the number of people who actually think what they are doing is evil is vanishingly small. I doubt Saddam Hussein was there cackling with glee and twirling his mustache, even as he was committing his atrocities. I have no doubt he thought he was justified because he was trying to unite the Iraqi people for some greater good.
Where one’s from (which **Disposable Hero **mentioned) is arguably just as irrelevant as one’s religion or lack thereof (which **Disposable Hero **didn’t mention) in regards to one’s philosophical view. Suppose we take out such factors as country, religion, sex, race, political views - then what is the philosophical view on good/evil?
I agree in general, but someone who is exposed to the cartoon-like representation of good and evil that we get in the US (the Axis of Evil! They despise our freedoms!) could be excused for asking this kind of question.
Someone who is from Northern Ireland would be exposed to nuances and gray areas regarding good and evil more than the average American, I would expect. I could be totally wrong about all of this, so feel free to ignore my preamble and start with my post that said “anyway”.
When I’m deciding whether someone’s evil (or redheaded or Belgian or dead), their own perceptions of whether they’re evil (or redheaded or Belgian or dead) are irrelevant. What’s relevant is my perception of whether they’re Belgian (or dead or evil or redheaded). Why would it be otherwise?
I did say that there are plenty of situations where shades of grey are relevant and The Troubles are certainly one them, I have my own views on the subject but for several reasons they aren’t for public consumption.
However the shades of grey are only relevant when looking at the big picture, all sides did things they shouldn’t be proud and there are certain actions we should have no qualms in stating are/were evil and unacceptable, aforementioned bombs in public places being one of them, the detention of the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six being another.
You aren’t going to convince me that things like that are ever OK, for the greater good or not.
Always looking at things in black/white terms isn’t helpful, but always looking at things in shades of grey isn’t helpful either, sometimes we do need to stand up and say that something is wrong and unacceptable, even when its an unpopular opinion.
On sidenote I recall an interesting article I read once that we as a society are too focused on the ‘big evils’ and as such let the ‘petty evils’ slide, where good and evil can be viewed as acting in an unselfish and altruistic manner (or other positive traits) or in a selfish and greedy manner (or other negative traits), for example so what if we bitch and spread snide and unfounded rumours about a workmate, I mean its not like we’re Hitler right? But those petty evils are what corrupt and coarsen us as a society and a people.
