Nazi Evil

Hi,

the work I quoted from is his essay "Of the Original Contract". The context is him mentioning the civil disturbances, bloodsheds and wars caused by the internal power struggles of the Roman Empire. His general work is against such disturbances and revolutions, he considers them detrimental to the public good, yet he doesnt blame them because he understands, imo, that they are inevitable given the imperfections of the system, the conflicting interests and the cause and effect relationship of all political actions. I perceive his approach to be the precursor of political realism, and I am writing a paper on this. I ran over this quote and thought it would be of some interest on this thread.

What he wrote influenced the political ideas of the following generations and is of relevance to the 20th century. The same with Kant.

Yes, I guess at heart I am a neo-conservative. But not an american one. But you would find me arguing for calling the dresden bombing immoral on the Dresden Bombing thread. There, like here, I dislike the attitude of demonising the actions of your opponent in order to clean your own outrages (stemming from the same human nature) as necessary in the fight against "evil".

take care

Hi,

the work I quoted from is his essay "Of the Original Contract". The context is him mentioning the civil disturbances, bloodsheds and wars caused by the internal power struggles of the Roman Empire. His general work is against such disturbances and revolutions, he considers them detrimental to the public good, yet he doesnt blame them because he understands, imo, that they are inevitable given the imperfections of the system, the conflicting interests and the cause and effect relationship of all political actions. I perceive his approach to be the precursor of political realism, and I am writing a paper on this. I ran over this quote and thought it would be of some interest on this thread.

What he wrote influenced the political ideas of the following generations and is of relevance to the 20th century. The same with Kant.

Yes, I guess at heart I am a neo-conservative. But not an american one. But you would find me arguing for calling the dresden bombing immoral on the Dresden Bombing thread. There, like here, I dislike the attitude of demonising the actions of your opponent in order to clean your own outrages (stemming from the same human nature) as necessary in the fight against "evil".

take care

That's interesting. I didn't know Hume made a significant contribution in political philosophy; to me, he's the premier epistomologist. The one whom Kant said "woke me from my slumber"

I agree Kant (and by implication, Hume) every bit as relevant today. It's been argued that (Western) philosophy never recovered post Kant, never WILL recover.


Whatever one thinks of Kant's moral theory, ("the categorical imperative"), imo he showed how relativist and essentially unfounded "moral" judgement can be. Whether you agree with his "solution" probably will predict where you come down in this thread's debate, imo.

Or maybe that was your point all along.

IMO, a lot of this debate is totaly irrelevant in the nuclear age; you guys are talking like war is still a matter of sabers and muskets, "good" guys and "bad" guys. What does it matter if humanity becomes extinct; a real possibility now. We are in the postmodern era, not the Napoloenic. get real.

btw; are there real neo cons ANYWHERE else in the world, beside USA? as such, I really, really doubt it. Also. what''s "political realism"? a subspecies of realpolitik?

cheers. (anyway)

Hi Imperialist,

Perhaps Hume would relate to the argument about the evil aspects of Nazism in so much that he points out that imperfections in the political system lead to conflict etc. as you quoted.

This is something, when thinking about the Nazi, and the Soviet regime, you have to take account of. It would be very much to misunderstand what I have been saying to think that I was saying that the Nazi regime was 'evil' in relation to their opponents, who were 'good'.

During the war, many of the Third Reich's actions were explicable and understandable in the context of a struggle for power among European Nations. Wanting to reoccupy parts of Poland, reunite German speaking minorities with the main body of Germany, restablish Germany as a world power etc.

I am sure that if the German regime had acted in this way, but with some moderation, it would never have gained for itself a memorable place in history.

The 'evil' of the Nazi regime would come from the scope of Hitler's 'interests', and the racist/totalitarian content. What led me to think the Nazis could be evil is the unnecessary and counter productive string of atrocities that they carried out mainly in the East, and which ends in the final solution.

The interesting thing about Hitler's regime is that much of this was the result of conscious choice, and, as far as I can tell, a radical desire to reshape the context and content of the 'struggle for power' in a rather apocalyptic way.

Political realism aught to council us to take careful account of the context and the limitations on making judgements about statesmen and regimes, but equally, there should also be some possibility for assessing the content of these regimes. A narrowly based totalitarian dictatorship that imposes it's will on it's own people without consultation, and risks (and throws away) their lives in pursuit of idiosyncratic foreign policy goals aiming at exploitation and slavery, is not really going to be a positive thing, and I think there should be some possibility for 'blaming' people who choose to go along with such a regime because they stand to benefit from the destruction of others, or do not consider/choose to ignore the likely consequences of their actions and attitudes.

The problem with this debate is that it seemed to get stuck in the 'Nazis are evil allies are good' thing, which is never what I intended. The allies seemed 'good' largely by default, because the Nazis behaved so badly that in the end they made the elimination of their regime seem like an obviously positive thing. I think I have wrote enough about this now though.

I hope your essay goes well, and it was interesting to hear about Hume!

I thought Kant set out to prove the objective existence of the 'moral law'? Do you think he failed?

He certainly has many interesting things to say about making moral judgements, and the basis for the same.

Given that, even though we now live under the threat of nuclear annhilation life still goes on, the debate here is partly concerned with, Was the Nazi regime a good or bad thing, and is it possible to make such a judgement etc.? Can the Nazi regime be called evil as a result of it's crimes, in comparaison with other regimes etc.

I suppose from what you have said you would not mind living as a slave labourer on a Nazi Gauleiter's farm, or in a labour camp on a Soviet construction project, or some such place, given that none of it matters when it all disappears. This is a very admirable and enlightened attitude, showing either a strong faith in an after life/original sin/life as penance before death, or great insight into the essential nothingness of human life, but many people cannot live in this state of enlightment. This debate is for them.

I can't say I agree with you on this one. Many modern wars are "sabers and muskets" or close enough to it. For sure, direct, fight to the death conflict between great powers is unlikely because it could lead to mutual annihilation. But not all wars are like this.

-- Proxy conflicts involving great powers (Korea, US in Vietnam)

-- Lower stakes conflicts with one great power and one regional power (Gulf War '91, Falklands -- Thatcher didn't threaten to nuke Buenos Aires, did she?)

-- Wars between regional powers without nuclear weapons (Iran-Iraq, Arab-Israeli wars)

-- Civil wars (take your pick, certainly something like Sierra Leone was more "saber, no musket")

And that's not even considering the whole range of low-intensity conflict, counterterrorism, stability operations and so on.

Nope. Only the US produces that combination of self-righteous moralism, desire to meddle in other country's affairs, and the power to actually do it. It's our Puritan heritage biting us in the ass again.

Yes. Morality may guide your state's ultimate objectives, but national interest and power realities are the driving forces in international affairs. In the contemporary US context, think Henry Kissinger, Jim Baker, academics like John Mearsheimer, or some of the retired generals like Anthony Zinni.

No. I'd die first, and pray for the strength to resist the desire to take as many of them (Nazis, Soviet Gulag operators) with me as possible before I went.

But, right. .....

Sorry if I'm veering offcourse (again). I'm trying to place the debate in a larger context.

I think we all can agree that there is such a thing as victor's justice. (not THAT Victor, lol).

The Allies (e.g., Bomber Harris in Europe, Curtis Lemay in Tokyo firebombing) deliberately incinerated civilians. Because their cause was "just" (as in the theological notion of a "just" war) and they didn't actually pack people into cattle cars, transport them to ovens, this is presumed less, or not at all, evil by some.

Is it? ...... I don't know... This thread is trying mightily, to pin it down, and we have seen some really thoughtful posts. Maybe Kant could figure it out, calibrate it.

I do know that mankind is addicted to warfare as the ultimate conflict resolution.

My point is: this addiction could ultimately prove our undoing as a species. Pax Nucleana was a very lucky interlude. It's apparent, imo, that nukes WILL proliferate, probably this century. It's evident the nuke club will expand, has expanded, the U.S. is losing it's nuke hegemony. What then?

If history repeats, as it usually does, there will be a nuke war. It's unlikely the species homo sapiens would survive, given long term blast consequences (geothermal) and subsequent post blast mutation rates (high).

Thus I think we need to move "Beyond Good and Evil" to quote yet another German philosopher.

Here's another quote, and then I'll shutup:

It is no longer a choice, my friends, between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence. And the alternative to disarmament, the alternative to a greater suspension of nuclear tests, the alternative to strengthening the United Nations and thereby disarming the whole world, may well be a civilization plunged into the abyss of annihilation, and our earthly habitat would be transformed into an inferno that even the mind of Dante could not imagine.

--Martin Luther King, Jr., Remaining Awake Through A Great Revolution

cheers, anyway.

coming from an american that means a lot.
if i had said that people would be all over my ass yelling i am antiamerican or whatnot.
it is good a good thing some americans recognise what their truly great ideals of the founding fathers had become.
an excuse for conquest, plunder and murder.

their cause was just because they thought it is? hmmm, right.

and why do you think MLK was killed? he was against the system, and that is always bad.

No. I'd die first, and pray for the strength to resist the desire to take as many of them (Nazis, Soviet Gulag operators) with me as possible before I went.

But, right. .....

Sorry if I'm veering offcourse (again). I'm trying to place the debate in a larger context.

I think we all can agree that there is such a thing as victor's justice. (not THAT Victor, lol).

The Allies (e.g., Bomber Harris in Europe, Curtis Lemay in Tokyo firebombing) deliberately incinerated civilians. Because their cause was "just" (as in the theological notion of a "just" war) and they didn't actually pack people into cattle cars, transport them to ovens, this is presumed less, or not at all, evil by some.

Is it? ...... I don't know... This thread is trying mightily, to pin it down, and we have seen some really thoughtful posts. Maybe Kant could figure it out, calibrate it.

I do know that mankind is addicted to warfare as the ultimate conflict resolution.

My point is: this addiction could ultimately prove our undoing as a species. Pax Nucleana was a very lucky interlude. It's apparent, imo, that nukes WILL proliferate, probably this century. It's evident the nuke club will expand, has expanded, the U.S. is losing it's nuke hegemony. What then?

If history repeats, as it usually does, there will be a nuke war. It's unlikely the species homo sapiens would survive, given long term blast consequences (geothermal) and subsequent post blast mutation rates (high).

Thus I think we need to move "Beyond Good and Evil" to quote yet another German philosopher.

Here's another quote, and then I'll shutup:

It is no longer a choice, my friends, between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence. And the alternative to disarmament, the alternative to a greater suspension of nuclear tests, the alternative to strengthening the United Nations and thereby disarming the whole world, may well be a civilization plunged into the abyss of annihilation, and our earthly habitat would be transformed into an inferno that even the mind of Dante could not imagine.

--Martin Luther King, Jr., Remaining Awake Through A Great Revolution

cheers, anyway.

I have been thinking, as this debate has been going on, that the 'victor's justice' thing is given too much importance in relation to Nazi Germany. In the extreme cases, it seems to result in people making statements to the effect that the crimes of the Nazi regime are entirely an 'allied' myth. That they deserved no condemnation at all, or in fact had done nothing worthy of being called a crime.

I am assuming that the rationale behind this is that the allied nations dispensing the justice did not condemn themselves for similar acts. It would have been preferable, but unrealistic perhaps, if they had, in the interests of pure justice. But, just because they did not, it does not invalidate the condemnation of Nazi Germany, it just means that only half of the job was done.

Accepting the 'history is written by the victors' idea to the extent that the Fuhrer did is also entirely misleading, because it in no way reflects what actually happens. In all the allied countries, especially in the decades following the war, as the situation became less vivid and safer to discuss, important questions were raised about the conduct of the war.

The false nature of the idea that regardless of the crimes commited victory wipes them away is most easily demonstrated by the Soviet (and the Communist satellite states) example; people were not allowed to express themselve regarding the Soviet regime/regimes and were intimidated into silence; but everyone had reservations, that were expressed as soon as was possible, and made the simplistic propagadist ideas appear for what they were.

Perhaps this is evidence of an intrinsic respect that exists to some extent within people, for other people: gross examples of cruelty and injustice rarely pass unnoticed, even if people are too scared/unable to discuss and openly do something about them. Propaganda can hide them, obscure what is happening, but if people discover...

What is also noticable, is that in many cases, history is not written by the victors, but by each Nation. Each Nation or people involved has their own distinct idea of the meaning of WW2, for example, and while people within each Nation will be happy to criticise their country's conduct, they do not appreciate it being criticised in the same way by foreigners.

The main reason the 'allies' (or at least some of the allies) could be considered 'less evil' than the Nazis, or not evil at all (depending on how you define evil) relates to a number of points:

i) Intention upon embarking on the war/ project for the post-war settlement.

ii) Scale and number of war crimes, attitude to fighting the war and the role of violence in that context.

The allies' cause could be considered more just in relation to the above.

I don't know enough about the war in the Far East to consider the role and place of the atomic bombs, but, that would be part of a discussion of the crimes of Imperial Japan, vs. the crimes of the allies in that theatre.

In most struggles and violent quarrels, each side will be motivated by self interest, a desire for power and advantage, but also, hopefully, some idea of a wider 'public' good, or at least a way of making the advantage gained viable and profitable.

Hopefully we will be able to avoid nuclear war by having leaders that think of some practical wider good!

coming from an american that means a lot.
if i had said that people would be all over my ass yelling i am antiamerican or whatnot.
it is good a good thing some americans recognise what their truly great ideals of the founding fathers had become.
an excuse for conquest, plunder and murder.

The Americans aren't that bad compared to other imperial countries like the Russians and the Chinese, it's just that they have Hollywood and really bad public relations, at least as far as relating to Europe and the rest of the world goes.

their cause was just because they thought it is? hmmm, right.

and why do you think MLK was killed? he was against the system, and that is always bad.

Please look closely. Using quotation marks (in this case, "just") usuallly implies that the writer does not agree with the face value of the word/statement, or is suspending judgement ironically. That was my meaning.

Some Christian (Roman Catholic.... I know nothing about Eastern Christian) theologists since, at least, Aquinas, have pushed the notion that war, an inherently anti Christian activity, can be justified under the "just war" argument. I don't see the validity of their argument. I think it'sa bald rationalization of war by peoplle who supposedly love their enemies (as Christ advised). imo, this doctrine yeilds self rightousness. (WE can kill, but THEY are evil).

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Re people jumping on your anti american ass; of course they will. It would be the same (i.e, as an American, I'd be accused of anti Romanianism) if I were to say something like: "Oh... all those Romanians they never read closely; they always jump to conclusions, and think everything is a conspiracy, anyways."

I'd never say that.

btw; please don't ask me snide questions. (As in "why do you think.........". ) I lived thru that era, and I know fully well what happened to MLK, thank you. I assume your intention was irony.

Again, the equivalent might be for me to say something like..."Why do you think Ceaucescu was killed? He had gold faucets in his bathrooms...that's always wrong." What do I know? I ( an American) have NO concept of that time/place, and wouldn't presume to tell YOU (a Romanian) that I do.

Maybe I'm just touchy today, but I'm not amused by presumptions of any flavor. sorry again.

The Christian theologians must have had to face that wars would continue to happen, and so they had to try and find a way of trying to make a guide to make sure that they were as limited as possible.

I imagine, though I don't know for sure, that war was not encouraged as a goal to pursue in itself or as an instrument of policy. Possibly the idea of a 'just war' was mainly aimed at situations when one's opponent forced the war upon you by attacking you, or by provoking a situation in which war was the least destructive and damaging option.

Christians would have to deal with competing imperatives; love your enemies, but also, Jesus does not always love his enemies and sometimes actually smites them, and Christians are also heirs to the Jewish tradition, in which ideas of absolute pacifism are balanced by more violent responses.

People, also, being the products of original sin, as the Catholics would think, have great inclination to commit sins of violence, which aught to be curtailed if it cannot be eliminated.

Sometimes, war might be the more Christian response, in so much as some violence saves bigger violence in the future.

But, I don't know to what extent the just war idea is applicable to the temporal world exactly; perhaps it was a guide to rulers and kings etc. They had to judge how to respond, and would know whether they responded from motives of ambition or power, or otherwise if they tried to be 'just'. Presumably God would be judging them on that, and the theologians (especially in the past )are as interested in preparing souls for this final judgement as about what happens on earth sometimes.

Also, to make sure your cause remains just, you have to stick to the guidelines of what makes it just; if you start being self righteous and abusing your enemies your cause could easily loose what made it 'just' in the first place.

The 'just' war thing has it's limitations, but, you would hope people could work out some guide and principles as to how to conduct themselves to promote as far as possible beneficial things, and avoid negative ones.

Sometimes it feels on this thread like the baby is thrown out of the window with the bath water, in some much as the fact that people have claimed their cause was just and selfless when it wasn't, means that causes can never have any just and selfless content at all, and that one side's behaviour is in a conflict is in all ways of equal value to the other.

So, the side which promotes and encourages harming civilians is morally the same as the side that tries to avoid that, and so on.

The Christian theologians must have had to face that wars would continue to happen, and so they had to try and find a way of trying to make a guide to make sure that they were as limited as possible.

I imagine, though I don't know for sure, that war was not encouraged as a goal to pursue in itself or as an instrument of policy. Possibly the idea of a 'just war' was mainly aimed at situations when one's opponent forced the war upon you by attacking you, or by provoking a situation in which war was the least destructive and damaging option.

Christians would have to deal with competing imperatives; love your enemies, but also, Jesus does not always love his enemies and sometimes actually smites them, and Christians are also heirs to the Jewish tradition, in which ideas of absolute pacifism are balanced by more violent responses.

People, also, being the products of original sin, as the Catholics would think, have great inclination to commit sins of violence, which aught to be curtailed if it cannot be eliminated.

Sometimes, war might be the more Christian response, in so much as some violence saves bigger violence in the future.

But, I don't know to what extent the just war idea is applicable to the temporal world exactly; perhaps it was a guide to rulers and kings etc. They had to judge how to respond, and would know whether they responded from motives of ambition or power, or otherwise if they tried to be 'just'. Presumably God would be judging them on that, and the theologians (especially in the past )are as interested in preparing souls for this final judgement as about what happens on earth sometimes.

Also, to make sure your cause remains just, you have to stick to the guidelines of what makes it just; if you start being self righteous and abusing your enemies your cause could easily loose what made it 'just' in the first place.

The 'just' war thing has it's limitations, but, you would hope people could work out some guide and principles as to how to conduct themselves to promote as far as possible beneficial things, and avoid negative ones.

Sometimes it feels on this thread like the baby is thrown out of the window with the bath water, in some much as the fact that people have claimed their cause was just and selfless when it wasn't, means that causes can never have any just and selfless content at all, and that one side's behaviour is in a conflict is in all ways of equal value to the other.

So, the side which promotes and encourages harming civilians is morally the same as the side that tries to avoid that, and so on.

No need to deal in rambling hypotheticals of what the just war doctrine might entail.

You can read it here;

http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp

warning; it's jesuitcal. (convoluted apologia)

cheers anyway.

This is the just war bit from that site that comes from the catechism itself (paragraph 2039 according to site); what is jesuitical about this exactly?

The rest of that site and the commentary, was that 'vatican approved' and an official view or was it just a gloss put on the above by some American Catholics? It looked like an apologia for US actions at least.

I would be surprised if a church that had so many of it's members and bishops in South America would endorse US policy in that total way. Another quote from the site:

Yes, it would seem that way, (an apologia) and that's part of my point. The political rationalizations for the current, or any, war the U.S. is involved in do not come out of thin air. They are deeply rooted in elaborate belief systems, such as this one.

This simply happens to be the Catholic version. There are similar theological elaborations by the various Protestant religions. Pres. Bush is said to subscribe to one of the more fundamentalist sects, as you may be aware.

To your second comment; the very word "Catholic" means unanimity of belief. The Pope has the last word, and the Catechism is, basically that word..it is the authority, the rule book, if you will. If you are going to be in the Catholic Church, you follow the catechism, or...you are out (excommunicated is the official term), as a heretic. (As we speak, there is a case in the news of a heretical Bishop in China). This is not news; it was the basis of the Protestant Reformation.

So, while S. American catholics might well not support U.S.policy, they will, of necessity, have to subscribe to the catechism. Parenthetically, there was until recently a movement afoot in S.America, called "Liberation Theology" which attempted just what you predict. The present Pope was one of the most vigorous quashers of that now moribund movement.

The Jesuits are the intellectual mainstays of the religion, noted for their probity and legalist rigor. Thus my comment.

For more details you can check http://www.usccb.org/catechism/general/q&a.htm

This time, I made sure to read all of the article in the link you posted carefully!

The surprising thing about it is the paragraphs which are quite fierce in explaining why war and violence can be justified; when I first skim read it, I took that as tacit justification for current US actions.

In fact, the other parts of the article would, I think, if you thought about it, incline you to condemn current US policy.

Apart from the way it's presented, I can't see I would disagree with in that article.

The political rationalisations for US wars might be deeply rooted in elaborate belief systems, but they aren't rooted in the Just War doctrine of the Catholic church. I don't think they really would have a strong root in any religious system.

Instead, I am thinking of a much greater mix of elements. I will repost something I posted a few posts ago, which I think is more relevant to exactly how certain religious ideas might have influenced US debates.

When you were talking about Jesuitical I thought you meant it abusively, as in the way protestants used to attack the convoluted causuistry (Have I spelt this right?) that the Jesuits supposedly indulged in. Benedictines were supposedly better and more pliable as well...