Would you condemn Hitler to hell (long)

Great Debates
1

Right, I know I am really jumping off right into the deep end here, but I have to start a thread at some point and I think this is an interesting question. I do however feel it would be a good thing to make a couple of things clear right off the bat. Firstly I am not intending to cause offence to anyone with this thread, I cannot think of any group who would be mortally offended by the points I am intending to make or I would not do so, nevertheless if I have miscalculated you have my sincere apologies. Secondly I am aware that different religions/denominations/congregations have different views on the concept of damnation, for the purposes of this post I am referring to the idea of hell I take people to mean when they say “I hope he burns in hell for all eternity”, that is eternal unimaginable torment. I am definitely not interested in the issue of whether Hitler could have been saved by a last minute deathbed conversion (I’ve seen other threads addressing this).

The question is this – Would you condemn Hitler to an eternity of torment for his crimes?

When I first considered this issue it seemed like an easy answer, of course I would. However the more I thought about this (it was a slow day) the more I was forced to come to the conclusion that no I wouldn’t. I subsequently got into a (good natured) argument with my work mates over this, all of who disagreed with me. I am however unable to change my conclusion. I would therefore like to hear the opinion of other posters on the board on this matter. Before you start disagreeing with me however I will share the factors I considered in coming to this decision.

I would certainly not argue about the magnitude of his crimes. In a day and age in which I hope we are increasingly realising the value that should be attached to a single life, it is difficult to comprehend just what it means to be directly or indirectly responsible for the loss of millions of them and the utterly unquantifiable suffering associated with those deaths. I also realise their are many people still alive today who’s lives were more directly affected by his actions and who could never forgive over something like this. However there are other factors which I feel bear consideration.

Colour me cynical but I do not believe in good or evil, I believe people do whatever they do in life for a reason even if this reason is just to make them feel better about themselves, get into heaven some day, or merely to make the voices go away. This is deeply depressing way of looking at life but I have yet to see anything that would convince me otherwise. This does however mean that when someone does something that I feel is wrong I feel compelled to examine his or her motivation. Just as I don’t believe that anyone does anything “good” for completely unselfish motivations I also don’t believe people do “evil” just for the sake of it, I have certainly never done anything wrong just for the sake of it, I have always at least some motive for my actions. Furthermore it is my observation that people are incredibly good at justifying their actions to themselves if no one else, I don’t think anyone goes to sleep at night thinking of themselves as the bad guy. I am therefore forced to come to the conclusion that Hitler probably believed in the righteousness of most if not all of his doctrine. It is certainly not unusual for people to look for a scapegoat when times are harsh (as they certainly were in post WWI Germany) and the Jews for example as representative of the moneyed and educated proportions of the German society made a convenient target. I have witnessed people on this very board suggest in all apparent seriousness that the problems associated with terrorism could be best addressed by rounding up and wiping out or forcibly re-educating all Muslims, I am myself living in a country where the popular press appears to believe that all our problems are caused by immigration.

I don’t think that Hitler was unique. I think that there are millions of other people who if placed in that particular situation at that point in history would have done something very similar, I probably know at least one of them and I am sure I have read the post’s of several more. It is worth noting that at least one world leader contemporary with Hitler was just as reprehensible.

Finally and most importantly is the magnitude of the punishment we are talking about. Eternity is a very long time and as for unimaginable torment, I can tell you that I have a very vivid imagination about such things and I can certainly wouldn’t want to experience anything beyond that. I am certainly not opposed to the idea that someone should be punished for their crimes, and in the case of someone like Hitler this punishment could be very terrible indeed. It is just that I feel that I personally would be unable to inflict that sort of suffering on anyone however great their crime without any possibility of release. I think that it is also important to examine our motives for wanting this punishment to occur, if the purpose is to act as a deterrent to others then so be it. But if someone seems to be deriving pleasure from the thought of the punishment of another does that make them any better than the person who wronged them. I am often disturbed by the apparent readiness of people (christian or otherwise) to wish unimaginable torment on that person on the news who is yet to be tried, their boss at work, or the individual who stole their parking space. I am aware that there are people who believe that I am doomed to suffer such a fate for, to give an example being an agnostic and not making my mind up, and who don’t believe that there is anything wrong with this.

So anyway I have said my piece and would like to know what your thoughts are on this. Do you agree with me or my friends at work (I assure you that no money is riding on this)? Feel free to substitute Stalin, Hussein, or anyone else you think deserves to be slotted into the question instead of Hitler if you think it helps.

2

He should at least burn and suffer for the number of years equal to the ages of the people he had murdered and tortured.

3

I concur, he should suffer the equivalent of all the suffering he has caused others. THEN he can go to heaven.

4

I was going to answer in the same vein as Mr. Blue Sky. I don’t have a problem with penance, but everlasting torure does not seem to go hand-in-hand with an all loving god.

5

I have a lot of problems with this whole idea of eternal damnation, frankly; it’s far too disproportionate a punishment for even the worst sins one can commit in one lifetime. But then I’m not God, and not in full possession of all the facts of the matter.

However, given my limited wisdom and perspective, I would say that the most appropriate penance for anyone would be to be made to fully love all those one has harmed in one’s life, and to understand that that harm could have been prevented. Stripped of all excuses and rationalizations, this realization would be horrific for even the mildest and most holy of people; imagine now a Hitler or Stalin or the 9/11 hijackers undergoing such an ordeal. Not a pleasant thought at all.

6

I’m not aware of any religion that thinks this sort of thing is up for a vote.

I’d do a lot of things differently were I God.

7

Luckily for us we are answering the OP - not practicing a religion.

8

Hence my caveats above.

9

If I were the all-powerful being who created a sinner and the world in which he lived, I don’t see how I justly could punish him for his sins.

Of course, if I were omniscient, I might see the justification for it.

10

I wouldn’t; I also don’t subscribe to a religion that has such tenets. (While there is a tribunal in the afterlife, the condemned spirits are fed to a demigod; this means that some use is gotten from them. The gods recycle; manure makes good mulch.)

What useful purpose would torment serve? The only thing I can think of is satisfaction for a human desire for vengeance; I don’t think that that’s a particularly worthwhile thing to cultivate. (I don’t find the idea of rehabilitation through agony particularly plausible.)

Consign him to oblivion; he hasn’t earned continuing existence.

11

I agree with Lilairen - why subject ourselves to the indignity of enjoying the suffering (and hence, continued existence) of Hitler? I know that even on my least happy days, it is a genuine pleasure to exist, to reason - Hitler would not deserve the potential for even one second of lucid thought.

12

When I need to consider moral questions rationally, I base my reasoning on the simple premise that that which causes suffering is evil and that which causes happiness is good. From this basis I come to the conclusion that the only rational justification for punishment is to prevent a person from committing crimes and/or deter them and others from committing crimes in the future. To intentionally inflict suffering on another human being which does not serve these ends is unnecessary, and therefore evil.

Applying this reasoning to the afterlife, I believe that the existence of Hell cannot be morally justified. It can be presumed that in Heaven, there is no way for one human being to hurt another, and thus even the most evil person would present no threat to anyone. In fact, to give Hitler a private heaven where he can torture all the imaginary Jews he pleases would be a positive moral good. Not only would you do the good of increasing his happiness, but you would ensure that he would not bother others in the future and cause them displeasure.

Emotionally, I have a difficult time accepting this conclusion. As a human being, I cannot help but think that those who commit horrible crimes deserve to suffer for their deeds, regardless of the utility of punishing them. I think the right thing to do would be to subject Hitler (or anyone else who has done more evil than good in the world) to some form of Hell until the point where he has experienced an amount of suffering precisely equal to that which he caused others. I suspect this should take at least a few million years, depending on the intensity of torment. To inflict suffering beyond that point would tip the scales in his direction, making him the victim and you the oppressor.

However, if I were God and instituted this system, I believe that a hypothetical Meta-God would be justified in punishing me for the truly monstrous amounts of unnecessary suffering that I would inflict. I honestly don’t know what decision I would make if given such power.

13

I agree with the fact that he should have to suffer an amount equivalent to that which he inflicted. But there’s one point that I have to disagree with. Most of you seem to assume that God, or whatever deity, would be the one to sentence Hitler to whatever torment he would go to. I submit that he is solely responsible for his fate, making the existence of some sort of suffering in the after-life in perfect keeping with an all-loving God.

14

Personally I would probably favour the amount of suffering equal to that inflicted approach, although this does raise the question of whether everyone would have to be subjected to the same thing. I understand why the idea of various types of afterlife appeal to some people, for many it is seen as an eventual correction to life’s injustices. That is those people who seem to get through life by lying, stealing, and cheating will eventualy get there punishment, while those who lead hard blameless lives get rewarded. I just sometimes are a little disturbed about the apparent glee with which otherwise nice people wish something which is by definition unimaginably horrific on another, no matter how great their crime.

15

Uh, of course not. But then again I’m one of those crazy people who find all punishment without a cause sick, so there you go. I notice how none of you who have stated you would favour an equal amount of time burning have actually given a reason - I suspect that there is none.

16

Then it makes no sense to complain about what Hitler did.

You can’t have it both ways. If good and evil don’t exist, then what Hitler did is not evil. And this statement:

is meaningless.

You are either claiming that some standard of good and evil exists, and Hitler violated it, or you are saying that it does not exist, and Hitler could not have violated it.

FWIW, in my faith tradition it is considered wrong to hold or to express an opinion on who should or should not be cast into hell. We can condemn actions, but not individuals. God is the only righteous Judge.

Although there are plenty of transgressions against the rule.

Regards,
Shodan

17

You make some very good points Shodan and I have to confess I am a little new at ethical/moral debates so I apologise if I appear to contradict myself. Even if what Hitler did was not “Evil” in the classical sense, that does not mean I do not believe it was wrong. My personal belief is that if an individual wishes to live in a society he or she must obey the rules of that society (not just the laws) and must be willing to accept punishment (by that society) to act as a deterrent to others. Most societies (including WWI Germany) hold the killing of human beings to be among the most extreme of trangressions and by those standards I believe that it would have been acceptable to punish Hitler.

However I am willing to admit that I am therefore being hypocritical in expressing the view that his soul/conciousness be further tormented in any way at all unless that torment could act as a deterrent to others (which it could not in the specific case). It just feels wrong that someone could act in such a way without experiencing the consequences of their actions. This does of course indicate a personal desire for vengance, the very thing I was criticising others about, ie more hypocrisy (I never claimed to be perfect). I obviously need to do more thinking on the issue, and you are certainly right that deciding such matters is best left to an all knowing God (if he/she exists).

18

Well actually what I meant was that only an omnipotent, all knowing deity could possibly solve the problem. I think that considering issues like this can tell us a lot about ourselves. For example it has told me that I can be incredibly wishy washy and indecisive about an issue that I thought I was certain about before I posted, oh well.

Does anyone here take the opposite view to the majority of responders, frankly before I posted I had half expected to be buried under a tide of people opposed to the idea that any mercy at all could be granted to such an individual.

19

Imagine the following SF scenerio:

It is X number of millenia in the future. Mankind has achieved everything physically achievable. Immortality, interstellar travel, cosmic scale engineering, etc. And one of the things achieved is the ability to view the past in complete detail; to the point where the bodies and brains of people in the past can be recreated from just before their deaths.

So a project to ressurect everyone who ever lived is undertaken. Dyson spheres provide plenty of room, disease and want are things of the past, no one need ever die (or at least stay dead). In effect you are in God’s position of having the power of resurrection, omniscence of the past, and the creation of paradise.

Most of the human race present little problem. But the question arises of what to do with mankind’s worst. The people that it wouldn’t be safe to let loose. What do you do with Hitler, and Stalin, and all their kind? Now certainly people who suffered from some definable mental illness- paranoid schizophrenia and the like- can be cured. But if Hitler isn’t provably insane, then he is evil. What to do?

If it were up to me, the standard not just for Hitler but for all mankind as well would be: An absolute and uncompromising acceptance of the truth. No myths, no illusions, no rationalizations, no denial. In Hitler’s case, I would force him to see that
(a) The idea that the Germans were an “Aryan race” was provably false, by showing the actual history of the Germanic peoples
(b) By making him witness every moment of persecution, tortue and murder of his victims (did Hitler every actually tour any of the camps?)

In short, eternity would consist of forever having the inescapable truth in your face. That would either be heaven or hell depending on the person. And certainly Hitler and his followers would be denied the freedom to ever harm anyone again. For the cruel and power hungry, being harmless forever while those they hate enjoy happiness would be the ultimate punishment.

20

Lumpy, I like your answer… but I’m taking it to imply that you agree that Hitler should be forced to suffer for eternity? I don’t understand from what viewpoint (other than religious) one should be made to suffer more than those which one caused to suffer. If your viewpoint is the religious, of course, there is little that can be argued IMHO. If it’s from a purely logical standpoint of course, I would appreciate it if you elaborated on why eternal suffering would be in order.