Quote:
|
The biggest and most important difference between the two, the way I see it, is that I believe that Hitler was evil. I do not believe Bush is evil. Just horribly misguided and foolish.
|
It's disturbing that, whereas I'm sure you ment well, you fall to such terminology to state such a point. What is 'evil'? Such third-rate ethical judgements not only are naive, but also fail to properly put into perspective what exactly Nazi Germany set out to do under the guidance of Hitler. 'Evil' just doesn't cut it. The main philosophical excuse of the german elite behind the genocide remains Nietzche, and to call his ethical standpoints 'evil' is as fundamental as calling the 'axis of evil' exactly that. It's a vacant statement, always used as a tool, as means to an end, rather than expressing an actual viewpoint. To judge anything only by how it happened, is incomplete. You should also undestand what brought it to be, in a historical, philosophical and economic context. For example, to understand the rise of totalitarianism in germany after the first world war, you'd have to take into consideration the fact that germany came very badly off economically after that, having to pay war 'funding'(sorry, the english term escapes me), as well as having spent a good deal of money in a war that was largely unsuccesful. They had trouble to adjust to the capitalistic model of economy, being at such a disadvantaged position. Couple this with some very serious refugee tension, and their wounded ethnic pride, and you have the perfect context for someone to rise up and declare the 'return to values' and 'the battle for the betterment of all germany'. Hitler was not evil. He was the product of a wounded, starving germany, begging for an easy solution.