Got into a discussion today.

[MonsterBengt]

...

[poormillionaire2]

I agree, I think...
The concept of 'evil' is a relative term for a point-of-view. Not everyone on the face of the planet will condemn an action as 'evil' because its a matter of opinion. Like all opinions, 'evil' is subjective to each individual and cannot be openly defined for all applications.

Relative terms can, however, be defined for the grounds of debating as to narrowing down a definition of a term for overall clarity and understanding.

[XeVeNskyLiNE]

You're right man, thats why people actually become Nazi's, its what THEY think is right. Thats why in and Good vs. Evil story, there are actually people on the 'evil' side. If everyone had the same interpretation of good and evil, there would be no wars, no fights, no confrontation. Thats why I'm not a religious person, but thats a whole 'nother story.

As for the blondes, you shoulda mowed them fuckers down for extra browny points.

[turtlecrxsi]

I think you were right in what you said. The Nazis and fascists did what they believed to be "right" in their given situation. They listened to the rhetoric of their leader and believed he was guiding their nation to become stronger, not necessarily "evil." You can easily see this with the way the US acted toward USSR all during the post war era, especially in the 80s when nuclear arms were paramount in foreign dealings. Every Reagan abiding citizen of the US believed the USSR were evil communists bent on world domination. I'm sure their leaders instilled the same ideals in their citizens as well. But I don't have to tell you this because it seems like you totally understand. Rationalism is the justifying of a means to an end no matter what that means is or what it pertains to (good or evil). I think it's awesome that the teacher retracted the definition given and apologized.

[drunken monkey]

you've got to be careful that you don't end up arguing over the exact meaning of the term instead of the intention of the term.


how about we take your nazi example and let me ask you the simple question:
do you think that what they did was good?

[XeVeNskyLiNE]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

do you think that what they did was good?

I'm sure everyone that isn't a Nazi will say hell no, but the argument is that its what THEY thought was good.

[nismogt_rfreak]

It's the same reason terrorists in the middle-east hate us, we are doing what we think is right(women's rights, etc.) even though they think its wrong. In turn, they decide that it is worth giving up their life to kill these "evil-doing" americans even though we think it is wrong. Everyone that isn't a nazi thinks that the nazis killing millions of jews is wrong, even though the nazis thought that they were eliminating the root of all problems in Germany.

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by XeVeNskyLiNE

I'm sure everyone that isn't a Nazi will say hell no, but the argument is that its what THEY thought was good.

that's not strictly true either.
much of it was down to apathy and simple obeying of an authoritative figure as per the Milgram experiments.

[XeVeNskyLiNE]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

that's not strictly true either.
much of it was down to apathy and simple obeying of an authoritative figure as per the Milgram experiments.

Thats an interesting point, I just looked up the Milgram experiments on wikipedia.

So in a way, the Nazi's obeying Hitler is in many ways similar to a child obeying its parents. One of the wikipedia quotes:

"...the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, and he therefore no longer sees himself as responsible for his actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred in the person, all of the essential features of obedience follow. This is basically the foundation of military respect for authority..."

I would imagine peer pressure would've forced alot of people into forming themselves into a Nazi, along with the fear of what would happen if they didn't join up. Sort of like how a parent would put the fear into a child to keep him/her in an obedient order.

Interesting stuff considering I'm about a month away from going into the military.

[MonsterBengt]

The things the Nazis did was good for what they believed. Every Nazi were happy when the Jews were killed off. To everyone else, it wasn't.

I don't use the word godo and bad nomore.

Though the discussion was not about the nazis, more of the word Rationalism.

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by MonsterBengt

The things the Nazis did was good for what they believed. Every Nazi were happy when the Jews were killed off. To everyone else, it wasn't.

I don't use the word godo and bad nomore.

Though the discussion was not about the nazis, more of the word Rationalism.

and that is exactly my point.
there is a difference in believing what you are doing is good (or right) and whether the action actually is good.
believing in something doesn't make it right or even true in the case of the propaganda that was the root of the Nazi's persecution of the Jews.

and again, I doubt that there was anything more to the Nazi's being "happy" about Jews being killed than mob mentality, Milgram type reactions and (mass hysteria" type reactions as per faith healing seminars.
Don't forget that Jews being killed lead directly to high level Nazi party members getting very rich and very powerful. Happy about getting money and power doesn't directly mean that they are happy about Jews being killed; that's just apathy again, suffering of others that they can't experience compared to personal gains that they can.

you can say that looking to benefit one's self is in a way a "good" thing but again, benefitting one's self doesn't have to equate to doing harm to others.

you seem to be focussing too much on the meaning of the term rationalism instead of the intent as I said before.
let me explain it a little bit more as how I see it by way of an example.

I firmly believe that on a fundemental level, you should do whatever you want.
If you want to eat a nice, fat, greasy, double cheeseburger from the deli burgerbar, then you should just go ahead and eat it. You shouldn't let outside influence (by which I mean that skinny, pom pom, shaking stereotype next door) tell you otherwise.
If you want to buy someone a present for no reason, go ahead.
If you want to take two weeks off and go incommunicado, do it.
But that doesn't justify doing what is harmful to others in order to fulfil the first belief.
I would like to have £1,000,000 in my bank account but that doesn't justify my robbing people.
I would like to get that job at that office but that doesn't mean I should go and kill every other applicant.

[fredjacksonsan]

I think MonsterBengt's point is that you could rationalize all of those things.

Perhaps "good" and "evil" cannot be defined for all at once(and I begin to be swayed in that direction); however you can see that an act is harmful to someone else, as drunken monkey said.

Right and wrong seem to be linked strongly to the viewpoint of the observer. If involved in some extreme faction such as the Nazis, they may find that exterminating certain peoples (Poles, Russians, scientists, and many other groups were systematically killed, not just Jews) is ok from their point of view and for certain reasons, thereby rationalizing their actions. BUT the consensus outside of the Nazi regime was that their actions were horrible.

But in rationalizing, they are not taking into account the harm that is done to the other people, only justifying their own actions.

In rationalization, it seems to me that you could argue that by needing to rationalize what you have done, you are trying to convince yourself or others that it was ok to do the thing(s) you have done. If it was not a problem to do something, why would you have to rationalize

Originally Posted by m-w.com

Rationalization....
to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as a: to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth> b: to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother>; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>

(other definitions were for mathematical applications)

What I'm saying here goes along with the definition; that outwardly you are justifying what was done, making it seem credible, or ok. But look at definition b: ...without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives, or even to create an excuse.

So IMO rationalization is a kind of cover up for something you know to have been the wrong thing to do.

[TexasF355F1]

Kudos man. That was a great point.

I believe the teacher was "rational" enough to realize she made a mistake.

[MonsterBengt]

Originally Posted by TexasF355F1

Kudos man. That was a great point.

I believe the teacher was "rational" enough to realize she made a mistake.

She was. And she was rational enough to not yell it out in the open, but rather say it discretely to me and my friends at our table to prevent a greater loss of respect from the rest of the class.

[drunken monkey]

being rational isn't exactly the same as what is meant by rationalising/rationalism.