You initially qualify Lee as good compared to Hitler but then leave out that qualification when claiming that he's both good and bad. This is conflation. You need to be consistent.

Lee Harvey Oswald is good compared to Hitler and bad compared to me. No paradox.

Or you reject the notion of being good compared to someone. Lee is just bad, even if not as bad as Hitler. No paradox.

Like usual, your "paradoxes" are nothing of the sort. They're just bad word games.

Can you deny that Lee is good compared to Hitler?
No. So, Lee is good.

Can you deny that Lee is bad compared to us?
No. So, Lee is bad.

So, Lee is good AND Lee is bad.

That's a paradox because good and bad are exclusive classes.

Your solution has merit though. Can you try and be clearer. Thanks

Can you deny that Lee is good compared to Hitler?
No. So, Lee is good. — TheMadFool

If Lee is good compared to Hitler then Lee is good compared to Hitler. You can't leave out the compared to Hitler qualification.

Can you deny that Lee is bad compared to us?
No. So, Lee is bad. — TheMadFool

If Lee is bad compared to us then Lee is bad compared to us. You can't leave out the compared to us qualification.

So, Lee is good AND Lee is bad. — TheMadFool

Lee is good compared to Hitler and Lee is bad compared to us. You can't leave out the compared to Hitler and compared to us qualifications.

That's a paradox because good and bad are exclusive classes. — TheMadFool

Being good compared to Hitler and being bad compared to us are not exclusive classes.

Can you try and be clearer.

I am big compared to an apple but small compared to a tree. Is it a paradox because I'm both big and small and because big and small are exclusive classes? Of course not, because being bigger than an apple and being smaller than a tree aren't exclusive classes, and this is the proper way to consider the issue – with all the necessary qualifications.

Like I said, you're just playing bad word games.

You have a point but...

Can I praise and love Hitler because, well, he's good(!!!) compared to the Devil?

Can I praise and love Hitler because, well, he's good(!!!) compared to the Devil? — TheMadFool

Of course. Millions of people share this view.

Logic parlor games do not and cannot replace or describe life experiences. That it might is an artifact of academia.

But Hitler is a bad man compared to Jesus.

But Hitler is a bad man compared to Jesus. — TheMadFool

Anyone is free to make any comparisons s/he wishes to. I'm sure there are always lots of opinions on all issues?

Oswald is a bad man. Jack Ruby, who killed Oswald, is a bad man. Hitler, who directed others to kill millions, is a bad man. We don't have to weigh how bad these bad men were.

Was Hitler 10 millions times worse than Oswald, Ruby, or some thug who kills 3 strangers by firing a gun from a moving car? No. Bad is bad.

Hitler, Oswald, Ruby, and the thug are distinguishable by the characteristics of their crimes. Comparing badness isn't very helpful. They all may have been involved in criminal enterprises -- one on an international scale, two possibly in some sort of CIA/underworld scheme, and one in local gang activities.

The maximum punishment for all of them would have been the same: execution. We can't kill Hitler more than the thug.

No. Bad is bad — Bitter Crank

Exactly. But then how do you make sense of Lee being good (compared to Hitler) and bad (compared to us)? These type of comparisons are done all the time. Words like ''worse'', ''better'', are evidence of this fact.

So, either we're wrong to do comparative analysis in the field of morality or Lee is both good and bad (a moral paradox).

Anyone is free to make any comparisons s/he wishes to. I'm sure there are always lots of opinions on all issues? — Rich

But if you make moral comparisons it leads us to the paradox of Lee being good AND bad.

I've said on other threads, paradoxes always arise when one tries to create an objective (immobile) Truth. So if you want to eliminate paradoxes just ceases trying to find the immobile in a mobile universe. But if you want to keep hunting for the Immobility, then what you will find are paradoxes.

Exactly. But then how do you make sense of Lee being good (compared to Hitler) and bad (compared to us)? — TheMadFool

It doesn't make sense as paradox. it makes sense as comparison. As you say, Hitler is worse than Oswald and Oswald is worse than you or me. But then, everybody is worse than me and thee. (I want to deflate my earlier statement that bad is bad--not reject it, but give it less emphasis.)

Paradox:

a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory: a potentially serious conflict between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity known as the information paradox.
• a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true: in a paradox, he has discovered that stepping back from his job has increased the rewards he gleans from it.
• a situation, person, or thing that combines contradictory features or qualities: the mingling of deciduous trees with elements of desert flora forms a fascinating ecological paradox. — Dictionary

What is paradoxical about Hitler is that he cared about the welfare of animals. It's paradoxical NOT because he was both good and bad (everybody is a combination of good and bad traits), but because it is a stunning contradiction.

Yes, 'worse' and 'better' are used all the time -- for comparison -- and comparisons are not paradoxes. "This peach is better than that peach" is a comparison, not a paradox. "John is better at math and French and worse at art and biology than Martha." A comparison, again, not a paradox.

OK, so Oswald is better than Hitler and you are better than both of them. Again, it's a comparison and not a paradox.

But if you want to keep hunting for the Immobility, then what you will find are paradoxes — Rich

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by immobility. How does that apply to truths? Are you alluding to vagueness? If yes, I agree. The boundary between good and bad is not sharp and exact. That's the reason why the paraodox occurs. There's no absolute good and bad. It's all relative. I wonder what moral philosophers have to say about this.

OK, so Oswald is better than Hitler and you are better than both of them. Again, it's a comparison and not a paradox — Bitter Crank

A comparison that leads to a paradox. I agree with you though. Good and bad are relative terms and not absolute. So, moral status runs through a spectrum, like a rainbow, from extreme depravity (Devil) to ultimate good (God).

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by immobility. — TheMadFool

Attempting to create a constant state of truth in a universe that is constantly changing in all manner and views.

For example, in one case something is good and in another case it is bad. Ok. That is the nature of human experience as it shifts its attention.

No. Rhetorical terms such as paradox, irony, coincidence, contradiction, metaphor, simile, comparison, etc. all have specific meanings. What you are talking about is not a paradox in my opinion. Its not being a paradox doesn't lessen the value or meaning of the statement that "Hitler is worse than Oswald who is worse than Ruby who is worse than ..."

"Hitler had good traits and bad traits." is only to acknowledge that there were contradictions in his personality and character. A comparison of his good traits and bad traits leaves us with the conclusion that he was much more bad than he was good. That he could preach extermination of Jews and at the same time be concerned about the humane treatment of animals is a gross contradiction in values.

Did you invest in Paradox, Incorporated--that large company that deals in "contrary to fact" statements?

Did you invest in Paradox, Incorporated--that large company that deals in "contrary to fact" statements? — Bitter Crank

:D

A comparison of his good traits and bad traits leaves us with the conclusion that he was much more bad than he was good — Bitter Crank

Does that mean that if Mahatma Gandhi, who preached non-violence (Ahimsa), could've killed just one man and still be considered good? After all he saved millions from oppression.

There's a problem here which I'm unable to pinpoint. Some evil e.g. hate speech seem morally redeemable. Others like murder are unforgivable. Some good like self-sacrifice are high up in the moral landscape while others like donating to charity aren't very laudable. Inherent in these is the comparative nature of morality - you can say that x is morally better than y or worse. But this leads us to the paradox that a certain person (Lee Harvey Oswald) is both a good man and a bad man.

How do moral philosophers solve this problem?

Does that mean that if Mahatma Gandhi, who preached non-violence (Ahimsa), could've killed just one man and still be considered good? After all he saved millions from oppression. — TheMadFool

Yes, Gandhi could have killed one man and still have been considered good. (Gandhi didn't personally save millions from oppression. He organized and led an independence movement in which millions of people participated.) Pick a great man or woman -- someone noted for their really fine accomplishments -- and somewhere in their history are actions that were not good. No matter who you pick, any real person for whom we have solid history, you will find a mix of actions over the course of a lifetime. Most of their actions will be of an indifferent nature; some will be exceptionally good, some will be quite bad. That will be true in your life, as well as mine. It's a universal feature of human existence.

There is a wide range of goodness and badness about any action that we judge, and there will be a range of goodness and badness in a whole life. Black and white all or nothing thinking leads us to very dubious conclusions. Take the situation where some people want to erase names because their whole lives were not 100% good. Take Woodrow Wilson and Princeton University. Wilson, born in 1858, was president of Princeton University starting in 1902, and had a distinguished career in public service.

Wilson is now accused of racist actions during his public life, actions which in the minds of some outweigh all the other accomplishments of the man, and they want his name removed from the Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Thomas Jefferson is another case. Wilson and Jefferson are just two of many who are being judged anachronistically. By the standards of some 21st century activists, they were very bad. Wilson is accused of watching the film "Birth of a Nation" (1915) which is about the Ku Klux Klan while he was President of the United States. Well, of course -- the film was released while he happened to be President, and he -- and many other people -- arranged to see it.

Wilson didn't integrate the armed forces. Neither did Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, or Roosevelt. Harry Truman did, 30+ years and 4 administrations later. Wilson didn't act to open up Princeton to black students in 1902 - 1912. Neither did the president of any other Ivy League University.

Again, every life contains a mix of good and bad, and if we apply anachronistic standards, the record is even more mixed.

Some evil e.g. hate speech seem morally redeemable. — TheMadFool

You have named a very soft, squishy target in "hate speech". Such speech has been variously defined so that many statements which are quite neutral can be defined as hateful, if for no other reason that they do not fulfill the wishes of some group. For instance, taking the view that marriage is a heterosexual arrangement that doesn't properly apply to homosexuals can be considered homophobic hate speech. (I think it is legitimate for people to disagree about homosexual marriage.)

Others like murder are unforgivable. Some good like self-sacrifice are high up in the moral landscape while others like donating to charity aren't very laudable. — TheMadFool

Is murder unforgivable? And why is donating to charity not very laudable?

Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, an anti-nazi Lutheran pastor, participated in the plot to murder Hitler. Is his action unforgivable? (as it happened, the plot failed -- the bomb injured but didn't kill Hitler.)

Is it that morality is comparative, or our judgement about morality is comparative?

Our general moral code says that murder is immoral. The law defines gradations of culpability, but law isn't morality. We judge actions by comparison, but our judgements aren't "morality"-- they are applications of morality.

Comparing Lee Harvey Oswald to Adolf Hitler, or Woodrow Wilson to Jefferson Davis, or John F. Kennedy to Richard Nixon are not morality, or moral actions, or moral judgements. What we do in making these comparisons is an act of historical judgement. Yes, I think Hitler was very much worse than Oswald, Davis was worse than Wilson, and Nixon was worse than Kennedy.

I'm not dismissing morality here, and it may play a role in our historical comparisons. But how does morality figure into a comparison of Ghengis Kahn and Caesar Augustus? Or Attila the Hun and Vlad the Impaler? Or St. Theresa and St. Catherine? Or Benjamin Disraeli and William Gladstone?

(Y) :)

I think I found a solution to the paradox.

The problem lies in thinking good and bad are relative concepts. They're not. They're absolute concepts with a clear well-defined boundary. However, within their respective boundaries comparisons can be done i.e. relative relationships arise.

So, Oswald isn't a good man. He's a bad man just as Hitler. However, within the class of bad men, he's ''better'' than Hitler.

problem lies in thinking good and bad are relative concepts. They're not. They're absolute concepts with a clear well-defined boundary. — TheMadFool

↪TheMadFool Oswald is a bad man. Jack Ruby, who killed Oswald, is a bad man. Hitler, who directed others to kill millions, is a bad man. We don't have to weigh how bad these bad men were. — Bitter Crank

So, Oswald isn't a good man. He's a bad man just as Hitler. However, within the class of bad men, he's ''better'' than Hitler. — TheMadFool

There you go.

I don't think that works. There are actually time of people, even living today, who believe Hitler was one hellava dude. There are some big websites for such people.

A better way to solve the problem is getting rid of universal truths and just say, as far as I am concerned Hitler was one decrepit human being.

I like the time angle. We change from moment to moment. So, it makes sense - at one moment X is good and at another X is bad.

However, there's one aspect of morality that prevents such an interepretation viz. responsibility. Responsibility for one's thoughts and actions remain unchanged through time. Hitler, if he were alive now, is still responsible for the crimes he committed 1939-1945.

Better-than is not equivalent to good. That's it.

Better-than is not equivalent to good. That's it — darthbarracuda

(Y)

Absolutely. Hitler was and remains responsible. This is the consensus agreement.