Well, what it comes down to is whether you want to judge a person by their actions, or by their thoughts. If you’re going by actions, Hitler was a monster. He murdered millions upon millions of innocent people in unbelievably horrific ways. If you’re going by thoughts, then . . . it’s harder. We can’t know whether Hitler honestly believed that his acts helped the world, or if he just persecuted groups like the Jews to give himself more power. Personally, I think it’s more of the latter, although at a certain point he may have started believing his own lies.
The justice systems of almost every country in the world choose to persecute based on actions, not beliefs (with an exception of things like the insanity defense). This is much, much better than the alternative, which would be trying to judge people’s thoughts.
In the end, it doesn’t really matter what Hitler believed. What he did was commit genocide, and no amount of good intentions makes that any better for those who died. I think it’s pretty safe to say he was a very, very bad man.
Just playing devil’s advocate (almost literally in this case)
So in the movie the watchmen, that blue guy blows up manhattan and bring about world peace saving billions over the long term. Was he evil?
So lets say that you were sent back in time and you have a chance to kill Hitler as a young man but you don’t know which of a thousand young men is Hitler, do you kill all 1000 men by blowing them up with a bomb or just return to the present.
The OP posits that Hitler believed that there was a greater good to be had from the holocaust. Why is killing innocents in pursuit of military victory more moral than killing innocents in pursuit of a greater good?
As I said, the morality of strategic bombing is often debated, contrary to the OPs statement that Bomber Harris is never condemned, and there was benefit in the strategic bombing, regardless of one’s views on the morality of it contrary to the OPs statement that there was “no benefit gained at all”. “Killing innocents” is most explicitly not what Hitler believed he was doing, and he didn’t do it for the greater good despite qualms about it. The victims of the holocaust were regarded by their murderers as subhuman enemies of the German volk, and anything but innocent. The German war effort suffered as a consequence of diverting resources to carrying out massive mass murder.
Q. How many legs does a sheep have, if you call its tail a leg?
A. Four.
It doesn’t matter how much Hitler called his acts “good.” If you believe in any sort of objective morality, then you judge his acts by that. Even if you don’t believe in any sort of objective morality, you can still judge Hitler’s acts by your own or your society’s moral code. Only the most absolutist moral relativity suggests that each person may only be judged by his or her own personal moral code.
“Well, I knew that one of those girl scouts would grow up to be the mother of the new Hitler. As to the senior citizens, escaped Nazi war criminals, the lot of them.”
Has anyone in history (aside, perhaps, from people dealing with clinical depression or other mental illnesses) genuinely, and correctly, believed that they were an evil person?
Only if his conception of “better” is morally defensible.
Possibly he thought it’d be a better place for Germany. Did he think (or care whether) it would be a better place all around? I don’t know. But again, what does “better” mean?
An honest belief can be an indicator of moral vice if it was arrived at through culpably irrational thinking.
Not knowing what you’re doing is wrong doesn’t make you good, it just makes you not know you’re bad.
I’d have to read more of what he said about himself. If he tried to justify his actions even while calling them evil, then I’d say he still thinks he’s a good guy, he just knows that what he seeks as the good is actually what everyone else calls “evil.”
Maybe, if you’re a complete moral relativist.
If you believe in some objective rights and wrongs, then he’s about as far from good as it gets.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions-- the old cliché that eh, kinda sorta applies here.
In his first race for governor, he was endorsed by the NAACP. His opponent was endorsed by the KKK, and won. Wallace then vowed never to be “out-niggered again,” and he wasn’t, until after surviving an assassination attempt, after which he softened his stance.
Edit: not saying he wasn’t a dick, but he was a pragmatic dick.
Might the OP be asking for Hitler’s good attributes? As Conrad said, “A single mistake could bring everlasting ruin to a man.” But that ruined man wasn’t all bad. First, he had great dreams for Germany. He wanted a great military victory. And racist as he was, he genuinely love the German --no the whole white race (given his fuzzy qualifications.)
How many does it take the be wrong? What if you could time-kill baby Hitler? Would that be wrong or would that be right? Is killing in self-defence, or defence of others right? Isn’t that what Hitler thought he was doing?
One day we may fall back under the spell of some bullshit like Eugenics, certainly social Darwinism and the current beliefs of right-wingers aren’t that far apart. Then it may be laudable once again to sterilise people against their will. Similarly, euphanasia may become accepted. Even homosexuality was once seen as tantamount to a pact with satan. What we believe to be right and wrong changes. What Hitler believed was right isn’t what I believe to be right, but my beliefs would probably be rejected by a majority of those humans who have ever lived.
Possibly in the future we will regard animals as deserving of life, like a Hindu or similar, and look down on the butchers of today.
So if someone had the intention to benefit his fellow man, how can we be qualified to condemn him, morally?
That raises an interesting point: when did he become bad, or if killing Hitler makes him good when did he stop being bad? Was Hitler born bad? Was he made bad by his abusive childhood? Was he made bad by the destruction of his artistic dreams and the psychological desperation that created? Was he made bad by being a soldier? Or by the defeat of his beloved Germany? I once read a book that claimed that while being treated for hysterical blindness he was hypnotised and convinced that Germany would one day rise again, and he would be it’s saviour, did that make him bad? Did he become bad when he betrayed the masters who sent him to spy on the Nazi party? Or when he tried to overthrow the government? Or when he was, as one newspaper said “Tamed by Prison”? Was it power, or the prospect of power that corrupted him? In the desperation of the bunker, did he repent? Did he want to redeem himself by killing himself?
