If right and wrong are subjective concepts and determined by society, why was Hitler wrong?

Question

If Hitler's society, a majority, decided what was right and what was wrong, who were we to try and change their morality? After all, isn't it all a subjective matter only based in situational ethics?

Answer 1

We have evolved empathy for others. I think anyone with a mind can see that Hitler violated that empathy by causing uneccessary harm to others. Hitler followed the religious teachings he had been taught. Read the writings of christians about Jews and you will see he grew up in a religious culture of hate.

Answer 2

Hitler wasn't "wrong". Nor was he "right". Objectively speaking, what he did was neither "okay" nor "not okay". If there are no such things as objective right and wrong, how could his actions be either? He merely had the power and desire to do what he did, and that's all that ultimately matters.

Suppose indeed that his actions were "objectively wrong". What difference would it make? The millions of people he killed would be just as dead. The "wrongness" of Hitler's actions didn't stop a single bullet or bomb, nor did it stop people from being gassed to death, so clearly this supposed "objective wrongness" is entirely useless as a protective measure against wrongful actions. If there are no real world consequences to "wrongness", then on what basis can it be considered "objective"?

Generally speaking, whenever John Doe claims something is objectively wrong, or violates natural law or gods will or some such, what's *actually* going on is that Mr. Doe, in his subjective opinion, disapproves. However, in order to lend his opinions greater weight, he pretends that it's god or nature (or some other objective source) that is making this ethical determination, so we should all heed his opinions.

For what it's worth, philosophers and priests have never been able to reach agreement on what is "right" and what is "wrong". Even if you just look at the christian religion, you'll find devout believers on both sides of virtually every controversial issue.

That alone should make it clear that morality isn't objective.

Answer 3

Right and wrong are subjective in the near temporal sense. What matters is the long term. Those that survive in the long term are those that survive in the long term.
Nature determines right and wrong by the Net Creativity of a species. If your species provides future usefulness over and above the resources it consumes, then you survive. If not, you go extinct.
The only natural right is the right to TRY and live. All others are statutory and transient. The right to life or liberty is really a quid-pro-quo between individuals and society. Society(the group) doesn't try to kill you if you follow their rules. It also works that you won't disrupt society if society doesn't break the rules. Grey areas abound, but Hitler broke the rules, killing people that didn't break the societal agreement. He also worked to reduce diversity in the species. One is wrong statutorily, and the other is wrong naturally. A species without diversity will be less able to adapt to environmental changes, and thus, will go extinct sooner, since environments always change. Nature abhors the middle of the bell curve.

Answer 4

Hitler was wrong by other society's standards. Too many other countries didn't believe what he was doing was right, so, he was wrong. Most people can justify what they are doing is right. But, killing people because they don't look like you, or sound like you, or believe something different than you isn't proper.
Besides, I don't think Hitlers "society" believed it was right. He killed off anyone who didn't agree with him. Most followed out of fear, and because they were brain washed. If you speak to some war criminals of the Second World War, they will tell you they did it because they were afraid for their life and the lives of their families.

Answer 5

Well...

Humans have an ethic code of their own that tells us right from wrong, seperate from cultural and social standards given to us by the enviroment in which we live. It is instinctual. There are certain things that a majority of humans, not matter their age, religion, cultural background, etc will and will not do.

For example, we do not eat our young like some animals do in order to eliminate competition for food, mates, etc.

Females also have a need to care for their young, even after birth.

In Hitlers case, the way he treated his captives was appalling to most of the world (torture, starvation, etc.). Because it goes against the basic human way of thinking. Torture is one of those things that is against normal human nature. Your average human being cannot stomach to watch or perform an act of torture. Do not get me wrong, there are some humans out there capable of it, but your average human is not.

Murder or taking anothers life is another human no-no. If it was as easy as some make it seem, there would not be soldiers suffering from Post Tramtic Stress Disorder or an overwhelming sense of guilt because they had to kill someone in order to protect themselves.

Many people may hide it, but generally, things like murder/torture of another person go against the human wiring our brains have. When that wiring gets screwed up, you get cold blooded serial killers who have no remose for the things they have done. Hitler has some major wiring issues...

Best Wishes...
T.

Answer 6

Either you're trying to delibertely and brilliantly prove how ludicrous the fallout from the theory of evolution is - "where no inherent Godly moral or ethical laws exist, and therefore our system of values is free for us to choose" - or you are seriously, seriously, seriously misguided.

The hypothetical question itself is a waste, since God's laws are not subjective.

However, man is corrupting them to become more and more so. Abortion is simply government-sanctioned murder, euthenasia and assisted suicide are already being practiced in limited regions...soon to come to a neighborhood near you, if it follows the same pattern.

Darwin's false religion has definitely contributed to our culture of death, because supposedly we're just creatures of chance springing from our "brothers", the animals.

Your question epitomizes that, but I'm not sure if you're trying to make that point or your query is genuine.

If you're trying to show how ludicrous such a concept of subjective laws is, you succeeded beautifully.

Answer 7

NO-- there are certain things that are wrong. And if you are a history buff, you would have learned that the majority of those who followed Hitler-- even those higher up... did so because they were threatened. Not because they believed they were doing the right thing. They did it to save their own skin. Especially, if you read or see the trials.

Answer 8

Right and wrong should never be decided by the majority, because that majority can be pretty goofy. This is why we need a God to decide what is right.
Killing hundreds of thousands of people because of their race is horrible, I wonder if you would still feel the same way if it had been your mother and you had to hide for your life? Would that still be subjective matter based on situational ethics? It's a different story if it hits close to home, these were real people like you and me. Have you read stories about how the crowd mentalities act, like animals. This man was demented, evil, and killed for pleasure, and killed anyone and everyone who stood against him. His personal life was a nightmare, have you not read about Him?

Answer 9

I had a sort of similar conversation with my son. I think that if Hitler had just been able to separate his prejudice and hatred from his ambition as a conquerer than may be he would not have needed that cyanide capsule. I think that he ended up being a coward because he did not face his crimes like a man at the Nuremburg Trial.

Answer 10

Because after the "majority" of them [Hitler's crew] decided what they were doing was right, they decided to inflict their so called "rightness" on the rest of the world and the majority of the rest of the world thought it was wrong.