Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Anyway, WTF does this have to do with Philosophy? Another ******* stupid thread.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ekpyrotic)
    (1) There's no way to traverse Hume's guillotine, and (2) objectivity is not accessible to us.
    Not sure why you have to postulate anti-realism in order to argue against someone who can utter the sentence "apart from the holocaust, the Nazis weren't so bad" and not realise how utterly stupid such a sentence is.

    Yet another example of people on TSR attacking (piss poor) normative positions with metaethics ...

    EDIT: I'll embellish here. On TSR there's a peculiar phenomena of moral anti-realism being used as a bludgeon against any remotely ethical proposition. But it's not meant to function that way. It's commonly taken to be the case that even if anti-realism is correct, then this does not have that many implications for our normative ethics (this is what I think Blackburn thinks, and he argues for it pretty persuasively). If someone says "the Nazis were good guys" then "moral realism is false" is not the appropriate sort of response. It conflates a normative issue with a metaethical issue?

    It also has the consequence that every ethics/political philosophy thread on TSR becomes ****, because it inevitably degenerates into realism vs anti-realism.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RawJoh1)
    Not sure why you have to postulate anti-realism in order to argue against someone who can utter the sentence "apart from the holocaust, the Nazis weren't so bad" and not realise how utterly stupid such a sentence is.

    Yet another example of people on TSR attacking (piss poor) normative positions with metaethics ...
    Or another case of people making pathetic threads. It's not his fault the guy's decided to needlessly wang a rant into the sub-forum without an appreciation of philosophy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    Anyway, WTF does this have to do with Philosophy? Another ******* stupid thread.
    You get used to it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Well, you can say that about anyone. Nobody thinks of themselves as evil or wrong; Hitler and co. thought they doing the world a favour by killing all the 'sub-humans'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RawJoh1)
    EDIT: I'll embellish here. On TSR there's a peculiar phenomena of moral anti-realism being used as a bludgeon against any remotely ethical proposition. But it's not meant to function that way. It's commonly taken to be the case that even if anti-realism is correct, then this does not have that many implications for our normative ethics (this is what I think Blackburn thinks, and he argues for it pretty persuasively). If someone says "the Nazis were good guys" then "moral realism is false" is not the appropriate sort of response. It conflates a normative issue with a metaethical issue?

    It also has the consequence that every ethics/political philosophy thread on TSR becomes ****, because it inevitably degenerates into realism vs anti-realism.
    But the realism vs. non-realism debate is the only philosophically relevant one. Otherwise, you're just debating historical fact, in which case he should have started a thread in the History forum entitled, "With the exception of the Holocaust, what was the contribution of the NAZIs to universal happiness?" or a non-Utilitarian variant thereof.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
    Cons: Fascist dictatorship, no democracy, killed all disabled, homophobic, evil, racist, had a ******* stupid foreign policy, deluded, socially unprogressive, against women rights, against modern 'degenerate' art.
    Cons? Hardly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    But the realism vs. non-realism debate is the only philosophically relevant one. Otherwise, you're just debating historical fact, in which case he should have started a thread in the History forum entitled, "With the exception of the Holocaust, what was the contribution of the NAZIs to universal happiness?" or a non-Utilitarian variant thereof.
    I don't agree. That implies that non-meta political philosophy and ethics are not of philosophical interest (which would take us back to the shoddy state political philosophy and ethics were in in the 50s and 60s).

    Taken charitably, the example of the nazis is a good springboard (well ... it's not, but maybe the OP thought it was) for some important ethical questions about eugenics etc.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by partoftheweekend)
    Cons? Hardly.
    That's either really crap sarcasm or you're hideously right wing?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Atleast they made the trains run on time


    :ninja:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    But the realism vs. non-realism debate is the only philosophically relevant one. Otherwise, you're just debating historical fact, in which case he should have started a thread in the History forum entitled, "With the exception of the Holocaust, what was the contribution of the NAZIs to universal happiness?" or a non-Utilitarian variant thereof.
    There's a History forum? (I mean one other than the ones devoted to A level History and Uni courses)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RawJoh1)
    I don't agree. That implies that non-meta political philosophy and ethics are not of philosophical interest (which would take us back to the shoddy state political philosophy and ethics were in in the 50s and 60s).

    Taken charitably, the example of the nazis is a good springboard (well ... it's not, but maybe the OP thought it was) for some important ethical questions about eugenics etc.
    That's a bit tenuous. Neither the OP nor anybody else on this thread (apart from you) was interested in discussing whether disabled Germans counted as persons, or whether social contracts justified the Nazis somehow. The OP's question reduces to "What did the Nazis do apart from the holocaust, and what is your emotional response?"
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    There's a History forum? (I mean one other than the ones devoted to A level History and Uni courses)
    Those were the ones that I was thinking of, which are as good as any (and certainly better than misplacing it here; thanks Bismark).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    What made the Nazis bad is exactly what makes eugenics bad.

    It's not the state's, or anyone else's, place to decide who should do what with whom and when, and even if you were right the fact of your rightness does not justify your being permitted to do anything and everything you like to anyone else in pursuit of your ends.

    Nazism is fundamentally evil.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    I'm afraid the negatives are far too intense to cast anything else in a favourable light tbh.
    Offline

    10
    You don't seem to know much about WW2

    The Nazis butchered Jews.

    That isn't it.

    On the eastern front the nazis quickly adopted a kill all POWs policy.
    In most countries they invaded they butchered locals for the minutest of reasons and were exceptionally hard on rebels.
    They were demented *******s who brought fifty million deaths upon this world.
    They caused the destruction of their country, wasn't united for the next fifty years.
    They imposed a dictatorial police state, brainwashed children and robbed a generation of germans of their innocence.

    What good did the nazis do? They pulled Germany out of the depression by massive infrastructure and armament spending (which could only have been recouped through war pillage or heavy taxation; the latter of which could plunged Germany back into recession).

    Why would you even make such a topic?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littleshambles)
    What made the Nazis bad is exactly what makes eugenics bad.

    It's not the state's, or anyone else's, place to decide who should do what with whom and when, and even if you were right the fact of your rightness does not justify your being permitted to do anything and everything you like to anyone else in pursuit of your ends.

    Nazism is fundamentally evil.
    Hmm, maybe RawJoh was right.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zweihander)
    You mean Aryans? Most historians agree that Hitler probably took his Aryan ideal from Germanic mythology, in particular the blond-haired blue-eyed noble viking cultures of the past.
    err... what?

    I'm an Aryan - they're people from north-east Persia.

    Aryans are dark-haired, medium-tanned people who rode chariots.

    Not yellow-haired sailors.

    The swastika is an Aryan symbol displayed in many houses across India. I think this practice is very rare, in fact probably unheard of in Scandinavia.

    No way was the Swastika a Viking symbol.

    Hitler was a very confused man as well.

    Those historians you're talking about are very very wrong.

    squish.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gaishan)
    Eugenics was far more widely practiced and advocated than perhaps you realise in the mid-20th century and certainly before.
    It is? :confused:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    Hmm, maybe RawJoh was right.
    :yep: I think so. Accepting that the actions of the Nazis related directly to their ideology you can approach the OP from a theoretical standpoint, indeed I thought that was the obvious way to do it as we're in the Political Theory and Philosophy forum :awesome:

    (Although I concur the way the OP is written it doesn't immediately lend itself to such a discussion)
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.