Posted: Dec 29, 2007, 11:39 PM CST
It has become commonplace amongst people in western culture to regard Adolf Hitler as in some way inhuman or "evil", yet rarely is anything done to actually justify this belief. In order to be evil it seems an individual must not merely commit "evil" acts, but realise his actions are "evil" and yet still will them. As such a truly evil person may be said to commit evil acts in the same way a "good person" commits "good acts", that is for their own sake.
Whether there are any people who qualify as "evil" in such a way is questionable, though doubtless Hitler was not one of them. As unpalatable as it might seem Hitler and those around him genuinely thought what they were doing was morally right, and that the ends, of the new Germany etc. justified the means. Hitler's crime therefore lies not in consciously willing "evil" but in having a distorted notion of "the good" and in believing that anything could be justified to achieve it.
On this score though is Hitler really that much different to many other leaders throughout history? In WW1 British leaders sacrificed over a million men to achieve victory and pursue what they claimed was the national interest. In Vietnam Kennedy, then Nixon, let over three million Vietnamese, and thousands of Americans, die purportedly to "stop the spread of communism". More recently of course we also have Bush and Blair claiming 100,000 plus lives lost in Iraq is a price worth paying for Iraqi "freedom". The characterisation of Hitler and the Nazis as an irrational force of "evil" however allows western governments to dissociate themselves and their actions from those of the Nazis, and disguise what are, at times, obvious parallels.
All this is not to apologise for Nazism or suggest that Blair and Bush "are as bad as Hitler", but it is to draw attention to the fact that Hitler is closer to us and our leaders than we are often led to believe. Further the assertion that Hitler was an "evil" aberration from history and humanity is not only wrong, but also dangerous as it allows us to ignore the question of how these things can happen. How is it that when "don't kill" is one of our most fundamental and universally recognised moral requirements that it is so continually violated? Recourse to a Hollywood notion of evil may be convenient in explaining this, and easier to accept; but it is a dodge since it doesn?t ultimately explain anything. Indeed the simplistic division of the world into "good" and "evil" is, in part, what allows atrocities to continue. This goes as much for a U.S soldier using white phosphorus in Iraq as it does for a suicide bomber in London; both are convinced they are fighting an implacable "evil" enemy which makes any means justified. Furthermore, as long as we are determined to view suicide bombers as "evil" we can never hope to understand why they do what they do, or address the causes of these actions, which is ultimately the only way they will ever fully be prevented.
It struck me, when I read them, that the following lines seemed strangely appropriate to this discussion.
From "Seven against Thebes" [Aeschylus]
ANTIGONE: If you gave wounds, you also received wounds
ISMENE: If you dealt death, you also suffered death
ANTIGONE: With the spear you killed
ISMENE: By the spear you died
ANTIGONE: Pitiful in inflicting
ISMENE: Pitiful in suffering
ANTIGONE: Let the cry rise
ISMENE: Let the tear fall
ANTIGONE: For you who died
ISMENE: For you who killed
What Is Evil?: click here to read the entire thread »