Is this a valid argument for "Hitler is not evil"?

[Ruzz]

So I was having a friendly debate with a friend regarding Hitler (very much sidetracked from religion). I was making my point on how unquestionably evil Hitler was despite my admiration for his leadership qualities but it was not even logical to argue how cruel this man was. He said something along the lines of "He's not evil. Because all you're saying is he's evil based on the world's moral standards. So you can't label him as evil."

What do you think about that?

By the way, forgive me for asking (I am merely a student in learning here), but Hitler WAS religious and he did basically rally his army with religion, did he not?

[Diogenes]

Evil does not exist. We label things and people as being evil because we don't like to equate what they do as being a normal part of our nature.

[Ruzz]

What does that mean?

[Diogenes]

What does that mean?

Evil does not exist as a thing in and of itself. All things are by nature amoral...neither good nor bad. They only become so through application.

Let's examine three words...love, hate , and indifference. All three of these words are amoral.

However in application...

love can be bad when directed at things to the detriment of living things, when one values a thing more than the effect it might have on living things...
likewise hate can be good, if it is directed at one's own ignorance it can cause a man to have the desire and will to overcome his ignorance...
again indifference can be bad when one is indifferent toward living things or one's own ignorance, but good if directed at things as it avoids the accumulation of things to the detriment of living things

therefore evil does not exist as a thing, a cause...it only exists as an effect...through application.

[lsbskins1]

Evil is a catch-phrase. You can philosophically argue that evil is a "fake" concept, but you can not really argue that Hitler was a positive force for humanity. He was pathological, dangerous and directly responsible for the deaths of millions of human beings.It matters little to me if you couch it in "religious" terms like evil or psychological terms like pathological. The bottom line is that if his vision had been allowed to continue to dominate the world, the survival of the species would have been at risk.

Any biological being seeks to maximize its chances for survival. His methods were at odds with that imperative. Call it what you will, it was not rational, nor worthy.

And no, Hitler's motives were not religious. His motives were delusional, paranoid and grandiose. The only church he supported was the Church of Adolf Hitler.

[Winter wind]

"He's not evil. Because all you're saying is he's evil based on the world's moral standards. So you can't label him as evil."

It depends on how you define "evil". I think most definitions of evil would definitely include Hitler, and if they don't, something is probably wrong with your system of ethics. However, unless you define clearly what evil is, you can't really call him evil.

I just find Hitler's actions nonsensically destructive. The more I learn about his beliefs, the more almost comic they seem until you remember he actually carried them out. Then it becomes a lot less funny.

[Dan74]

And no, Hitler's motives were not religious. His motives were delusional, paranoid and grandiose. The only church he supported was the Church of Adolf Hitler.

His regime did establish an official Nazi church. While he didn't personally establish it, he didn't oppose its creation either.

I can't stand Hitler defenders like Pat Buchanan. Hitler was a mentally challenged person who took advantage of an ignorant population.

[notthecheatr]

And no, Hitler's motives were not religious. His motives were delusional, paranoid and grandiose. The only church he supported was the Church of Adolf Hitler.

Certainly not, but it's interesting to note how the churches in Germany reacted to Hitler.

[grandpa]

Discussing "Evil" is largely a semantic debate. If we want, we can call "evil" things "anomalies," and debate how long a given anomaly should continue. But the concept of evil works pretty well, depending on how it was meant to be taken (context is important).

Grandpa h.

[el ايمان]

Despite the debated existance of evil, the use of it in context could quite easily apply to Hitler. When one uses "evil", you can assume they are contrasting things. Instead of "evil doesn't exist", a more appropriate response might have been "in whom's opinion"?

[Senor Hoint]

Certainly not, but it's interesting to note how the churches in Germany reacted to Hitler.

Indeed, the reactions of all the institutions in Germany to Hitler is of great interest.
Some churches were into him. Others probably hated him. None could oppose him too openly without being arrested by the SS.

[grandpa]

Indeed, the reactions of all the institutions in Germany to
Hitler is of great interest.
Some churches were into him.

Hitler exemplifies a very real, very significant danger of LAW enforcement. With the crucial help of law enforcement, Hitler was in the right place at the right time. Without laws, and without public support for his seat of power, he could not have ruled.

Countless individuals and organizations ignore this simple, obvious truth.

Grandpa h.