Prove this painter was evil by objective moral standards

Prove this painter was evil by objective moral standards.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

He harmed society by being responsible for countless deaths, killed without reason besides his racial fantasies.

He studied liberal arts.

he just put some paint over a photography, cuckest painter ever

Objective moral standards, not christian ones

Very good point

Very good point was meant for

Morality is based on society. Therefore are things that harm society immoral. Christianity just combined this basic social concept with metaphysics.

So if you discard that he dindu nuffin?

He didn't kill your grandparents

He inflicted untold suffering on sapient beings for no good reason.

He wasn't like Griffith or Reinhard von Lohengramm, whomst were at least good at what they did and put in a lot of effort without anyone nagging them to do so.

He killed himself. He was his own judge. The judge who decided that his own evil must stop. There is no more objective standard than that.

He caused suffering for foreign people in the belief it will ultimately improve the lives of his own. That's not entirely pointless.

> Jews
> Foreign People

>implying it wouldve mattered at all if he didnt kill himself

Mostly were, germany didnt have that many when the holocaust began. Most fled the reich during the pre-war time.

No, even if you leave morals out he still remains a failure since he didn't reach any of his goals in the end.

>X1 caused suffering for X2, therefore X1 ebil
Christian morality and in general morality is not valid in any way other than subjective perception

>he still remains a failure for not reaching his goals
The majority of people

evil has nothing to do with morality

He killed himself because he based all of his life on politics. He had no close relationships to other people, no children, no wife. Eva Braun had way more passion for him then the other way around. When his political life failed he had nothing to live for.

Maybe tell us how you come to that conclusion instead of expecting us to think like you

his suicide was something out of a greek tragedy

>The majority of people
Most people don't leave an entire continent in ruins.

But tragedies are supposed to make you sad
And the hero has to die
Hitler was no hero

at least that's an accomplishment and something to be remembered for

>leave a continent in ruins
And that is bad because?
Oh, and there are always two parties in war.

>hitler was no hero
Again objectivity is a false god

Ask nicely

Not for Hitler though. His primary goals were Lebensraum, victory for the german people in the struggle of races and the extermination of the jewish race. Nothing was accomplished and in the end he was a broken man. He utterly failed and lost everything.

Then why was he, objectively a hero?

>why is death and destruction bad
Oh fuck off edgy cunt

Except this time one party evidently craved for war since at least the 1920's. Read Mein Kampf/ Hoßbach protokoll. His ideology never changed.

He wasn't - objectively.
Not an argument.

He drove his niece to suicide by fondling her.

I've read mein kampf. It is a political book calling for war with internal enemies not other countries.

Callous disregard or even contempt for human life, at the end of the war this extended to even his own people.

Also there's no such thing as an 'objective' moral standard you fucking sperg, but the sort of violence and destruction Hitler brought about is near universally condemned so your answer is there.

I guess the part where he talks about Lebensraum he just assumed Eastern Europeans would willingly give up their countries to him and move out of the way for German settlers?

You forgot about the struggle between the races for superiority by war and the eastern expansion that will undoubtly result in violence? Or his aggressive foreign policy that only worked peacefully for such a long time because France and England were in constant crisis.

>objective moral standards.
There are no objective moral standards.

OK then, how do you explain that war was good and the death of 60 million ''wasn't a big deal''?

>strawing hitlel
He said world history was a product of racial wars of superiority, he never mentions warring on a large scale and stated that that is counterporductive.

IMO he was evil by both subjective and objective standards on the account of the death and destruction he and his buttbuddies caused not only on other people but his own as well

How do you explain it was bad?

This

Thats the point you brainlet.

Oh I don't know.
Maybe it's starting the largest and most destructive war in human history
Or the planned extermination of entire races and cultures
Or the death of three fucking percent or the work population?

The poor soul is demonized by propaganda.

lol

When quite near every moral system of any relevancy says what he did is evil it's not so much a stretch to say Hitler was evil and have to worry about some genius butting in with "muh objectivity."

Again, how is that evil? By whos standards?

Subjectevly, he can be considered as either evil or good; it depends on moral values we use for judging him.

>quite near every
So still not evil?

I think his point is that some people will say that something like this is not bad, maybe they even think it's good, so the word 'bad' is subjective. That's the question that is implied ITT Can you define an objective morality?

Thank you, brainchad

Unwarranted causing of death is wiewed by todays society(and the society then) as bad, especially on such a scale

By people who understand the social concept on an emotional and/or rational level.

The only objective standard of morality is God, let's compare and measure if Hitler fits.

Generalizing, nice.
This

In order to survive a race is required to protect and expand it's land, resulting in war. He never said or implied that this struggle is over. Resulting in the conclusion that the german(ic) race must fight in order to protect it's land and defeat the enemies who want to naturally conquer it.

God is an all-knowing, all-powerful being, no-one can really comprehend what exactly He wants it why He does things
Also probably never existed but I'm not here to judge

Hitler was not all-knowing, nor all-powerful

>protect their land
From who? Germany wasn't under threat or attack, and they had plenty of space for more people with their current borders

He also never implied which land and which struggle.

To think that he was planning for a world war is dumb.

Explain why generalizing is wrong in this case. If you are familiar with social conventions and rationally understand their concept then you also know what is bad. If you have parents with any kind of authority then you also know at least a bit what's bad. If you have empathy then you even might be able to understand it on an emotional level. But if you are a sociopath who leaves himself out of society then you might not understand it. It may be based on an abstract feeling but it still remains a useful discription for most people.

Ur the king of generalizing

He still thought in 18th century categories which stated that land equals power. Maybe he looked at the colonial empires and concluded that France and England wanted to have Germany, also WW1.
Eastern europe (Ostgebiete) and racial struggle. There is plenty of literature that is explaining his ideology in full detail.
>To think that he was planning for a world war is dumb.
How do you explain evidence for his plans like the previously mentioned Hoßbach Protokoll in which he describes his political ambition for war?

So 0 evidence for WORLD war?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

>objective moral standards
No such thing.

Poland shoot first.

Oh hello brainlet that was the point of my thread.

>Poland shoot first.
True.

He lost and destroyed germany

>objective moral standards
If you said what you think these are... but you know it'd be too easy then

World war is the natural conclusion if the germanic race doesn't want to lose against the others. War ends when there aren't any enemies left, the enemies are inferior races who will be subjugated and the other european powers who all aim for world domination which only one power can ultimately win.

Hang on a second do you mean the guy who painted this picture of Adolf?

>inferior races will be subjugated
[Citation needed]
>world domination
[Citation needed]

Eberhard Jäckel: Hitlers Weltanschauung/ Vollzug einer Weltanschauung

>racial fantasies
racial theory is very real user

There is nothing real about alleged Aryan superiority. Hell, Germans have nothing to do with Aryans, even Slavs are more closely related to them.

He was a social democratic historian. Highly politicized.

"Jäckel sees Hitler as being the historical equivalent to the Chernobyl disaster."

Lmao, very scientific.

>theory
It remains unproven, unscientific and acadmically outdated. It's only accomplishment is showing how people want to verify their preconceived notions through pseudoscientific evidence

That's no argument. Maybe read his book before reading his wikipedia while claiming that it's not scientific.

Maybe read Mein Kampf and Myth of the 20th Century and then speak of muh world domination

>Mein Kampf and Myth of the 20th Century
>t. brainlet

not him

>remains unproven
Parts of it have been proven.

Not an argument.

Reminder he was a MODERNIST and was glad the allies destroyed old city centers because he wanted to plow through them anyway for his stalinist tier reformations
I swear, germany would be like the soviet union in architecture even if he won

Indeed. But you claim other books being non scientific while recommending to read Mein Kampf. Really, nigga?

>[Citation needed]
Sure. Look at how the Germans treated the occupied territories in Eastern Europe, in particular Poland.

My interpretation of Mein Kampf holds no authority, same as yours. While the book I mentioned was/is part of a scientific discourse on the subject.
>Myth of the 20th century
Alfred Rosenberg isn't Hitler

Germany cross border first

So your socialist quasihistorian that claims hitler was literally chernobyl is valid?

Mein Kampf is a political book, not written by a scientist but by the very person that is claimed to have wanted "world domination".

>is part of an objective historical assesment
WORLD DOMINATION, LITERALLY CHERNOBYL

So the slavs, hindus, arabs who fought for hitler were also to be exterminated after hitler dominated the world?

>So your socialist quasihistorian that claims hitler was literally chernobyl is valid?
I'm not the guy referring to that historian, I'm just trying to show how broken your arguments are.

To answer a question with no right answer? Might as well make a thread about Hitler's paintings and ask us to criticize them.

Bad attempt.

Good advice, will do one day.

>t. the person referring to Mein Kampf

>implying it's not ok to reffer to it in any way

>SPD
>socialist
Hi amerimutt. He is a respected historian.
The book has received positive reviews and your cherrypicked polemic quotation and irrelevant interpretation of Mein Kampf won't change it.