He didn’t kill anyone directly, he just persuaded others to kill. But is that a crime? Once I thought it is, now not so much. What do you think?
Why do you think that? If I hire a hitman to whack someone, am I not using the hitman as my weapon?
Sure, the hitman may decide not to do it, but why is that relevant? If I try to shoot you, the gun might jam.
But can you refer to people as rational agents and suddenly consider them “weapons”? Don’t people have their own will? Why should responsibility for a crime by divided? I feel that the person who actually used violence should be the sole criminal. Sure his upbrining may have contributed, sure his friends have contributed, sure the victim has contributed, sure someone else (who maybe payed him) contributed to the muder, but are they all responsible for it? I don’t think so. There is only one person responsible.
No, because the outcome would not have been the same had he not been the Sovereign of Nazi Germany.
If you break it down that far, then the bullets are the ones responsible. The people who actually carried the orders are as much to blame as Hitler, but Hitler was not innocent IMO.
The bullets can’t be blamed, they are not rational agents.
So, basically what you’re saying is, as long as I can find a way to make my aggression indirect, I’m completely absolved of any charges of unethical behavior. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
I think he was slightly guilty at least. I say slightly because he seemed to have done everything he did according to his conscience but it’s just that his conscience was wrong. Of course he could’ve sought moral instruction in the Church when he was a boy (he was a Catholic in a Catholic country, Austria). But who knows about his personal religious life and the many variables that could’ve swayed him one way or another?
How culpable was “the leader” for killing all those people? I would say probably slightly (but obviously don’t take my word for it).
Why slightly? If the chain of command led up to him, which it did, then he’s responsible for issuing orders to issue orders to issue orders to commit murder. Doing something on a grand scale through a system doesn’t erase the action. If anything it multiplies the immorality.
I say that Hitler was morally a terrible person, because he used his charimsa to persuade others to kill many innocent people. However I do not think he is criminally liable, that is, violence should not be used against him, as he himself did not use violence.
The responsibility isn’t divided… It’s multiplied to whoever was responsible.
What if one guy supplies materials, another builds a bomb, another transports it to the target, another sets the phone detonator, and another triggers the bomb by calling it? Why is only one person responsible? Who, exactly, is responsible?
What if the guy who calls the number doesn’t realise who he is calling, i.e. was set up?
Of course you can act through the instrumentality of another… Do you also believe that someone doesn’t deserve any credit for designing a complex machine, but only the person who follows the instructions and puts it together? Probably a robot…
He definitely should be ostracized, and derided, but not physically harmed.
ok, Eugene, you made your point. But the vast majority of anarcho-libertarians would disagree with you. End of story.
Morally? He wanted alot of people killed. And gave orders to do it. Morally, he may have felt satisfaction at the deaths of innocent people.
So, morally, he is not a good person.
You said “innocent”. Now you’re calling his victims “innocent” people. Either you have no idea what you’re even saying, or you have a very flexible definition of that word.
And again, you’re saying so long as I find a way to make my aggression indirect, I’m “innocent”, yes? Just like Jigsaw? How about I just set up a trap for you, which you voluntarily walk into. It was your choice. You didn’t have to go through that door. I didn’t use any violence. I just happened to think the space right above the door was a perfect place for my anvil. And I just happen to like using ropes that give way when doors open.
Compare this to the wife that secretly kills her husband. She doesn’t threaten her husband verbally. However, Hitler actually threatened people, not simply ordered the murders. In the HItler case, he definitely has obviously not innocent, so it was a bad example. Your question make more sense using the example of the wife.
He was the cause of other’s deaths, that is true, but is he morally responsible? I think that (and on further reflection this is problematic) he is at best, a little responsible, because he doesn’t have a per se intention to do wrong -he honestly believed and ( if I read Mein Kampf correctly) always thought, that Jews (and others) should be killed.
Now is Hitler’s ignorance culpable or not? That’s a question that I don’t think I have the data to give my answer (such that it is).
No, I do not absolve indirection, but it is not idirection when another person is involved. People have free will, so you can’t “use them as a weapon”. This just doesn’t make sense.
In regards to Hitler, he couldn’t threaten anyone, because no one could credibly believe that Hitler is capable of physically harming anyone.
Gee. Eugene moving the goal posts. You should see my big surprised face.
First you ask if Hitler was innocent, and the very first part of your rationale begins “He didn’t kill anyone directly, he just persuaded others to kill.” Now you’re telling me it’s not indirect if another person is involved. Hitler’s innocent, his victims are innocent, Hitler didn’t kill anyone directly, but they weren’t killed thanks to him indirectly either.
You really should think about this a little more.
Forget it, Eugene. Not even libertarians are buying this one.
Is a shooter a criminal? He didn’t actually kill someone, the bullet did.
He intentionally set off a chain of events which did, and he believed would, result in the deaths of other individuals.
He’s not only a criminal, he’s a monster.