Treck wrote:Most "bad" people have had good intentions, Hitler had good intentions, he wanted to strengthen humanity, and i wouldnt say thats a bad intention, he just tried doing it in a way most people see as a "bad" action, not to mention that the fact that he "lost" the war automaticly makes everything he did into "bad" actions, even tho the general view of things were a lot different before.
I think this is a stretch. He may have said he wanted to "strengthen" humanity, but he based it on a completely arbitrary definition of "strength." "Aryan=good, Jew=bad" is not an objective definition, nor one supported by science, even given the limitations of scientific knowledge in the 1930s. This is exactly the sort of doublespeak that irks me about modern politics; phrasing your idea to sound altruistic does not inherently make it so.
I don't think anyone will really be able to accurately say what he intended. He was one of the first political masterminds of the modern era, able to enthrall listeners and persuade them to agree with him on some of the most insane policies the world has ever seen. Everything he said and wrote was carefully calculated, which makes it hard to determine which parts of it he really believed, and which parts were just fabricated to "win" his audience.
Further, I don't think that the fact that he lost automatically makes
everything he did "bad." He did lots of good things for the country before the war, especially economically. Conversely, even had he won the war, it wouldn't have made any of his atrocities automatically "good."
On-topic, I don't think that separating it into "intentions" and "actions / choices" makes sense. Having good intentions but using "bad" methods to achieve them is no better or worse than having "bad" intentions and achieving them through "good" actions. Being "good" doesn't require one or the other; a truly "good" person has good intentions
and tries to achieve those goals by making morally "good" choices along the way.
And before we get into a Lawful/Chaotic/Neutral alignment debate, let's remember that "good" and "evil" are not binary. There are shades of grey here. Is the person who defies authority for a good reason good, or evil? What about the person who does something "bad" for the greater good? How "bad" can that something be before it offsets the "greater good" of the result? While you may not be able to put a definite number on these things, it's pretty clear there's a lot more options than "1" and "0."