>
>
>
>> From: Brian Siano <siano at mail.med.upenn.edu>
>>
>> So you're basically saying that, if someone becomes the supreme head
>> of state, they are _ipso facto_ not a lunatic. Rather, they are
>> highly rational, disciplined long-term planners-- just the qualities
>> one would want in a leader.
>
>
> Caligula was certainly a nutcase. Hitler had psychological problems to
> say the least. But neither of them either had to or managed to work
> their way past some of the most politically savvy minds in Russia at
> the time.
Your standard of sanity in a ruler requires that they match wits with "most politically savvy minds in Russia." Call me naive, but it appears that the only person to whom this exemption-from-lunacy can be applied to is Stalin. This amounts to saying that "Stalin cannot be insane because he is Stalin."
> Stalin was probably a sadist with tendencies toward paranoia that were
> increased by people around him who reenforced his belief system. He
> was not a "lunatic." A "lunatic" is someone frothing at the mouth in a
> padded cell.
And since no ruler of a country would allow himself to be put into a padded cell, rulers are _ipso facto_ not lunatics.
This is a bit like saying that corporate executives cannot be criminals, because criminals are in prison, and there are no executives in prison. (The ones who do wind up in prison are, of course, no longer executives.)
>> Why not? Evil's a very useful term. Can't really make moral
>> distinctions without some notion of evil.
>
> What is the point in having a "who was more evil than who?" contest?
> Stalin? Hitler? Mao? Why not Nero? Demonizing specific figures has the
> effect of cutting off analysis. "The Purges happened just because
> Stalin was an evil man, and evil people do things like that!" Case
> closed.
You must be new to the concept of evil, then. There's a lot of point in saying that such-and-such was an evil man, an evil regime, an evil policy. How would we recognize what's desirable and what isn't? A cost-benefit analysis?
And what's wrong with demonizing people? There are lots of people whose behavior can be described as "demoniac" and "evil." Offhand, I'd say mass murder's a pretty good indication; in fact, if someone's responsible for mass murder, I don't think one can "demonize" them any further.
And to apply the term "evil," one _must_ perform some kind of analysis-- so, far from "cutting off analysis," one is _encouraged_ to analyze, evaluate, and make distinctions.
>>> For a dictator to wipe out his enemies and those connected with them
>>> is supremely rational.
>>
>> Okay, now they are highly rational, disciplined long-term planners
>> who don't scruple at mass murder. Gotcha.
>
> What is the contradiction between being highly rational and willing to
> kill people?
None, if one refrains from killing people. Heck, I'd like to kill the guy whose car splashed me on the way to work. But, if this "want" forces someone to actually perform a heinous deed, then I'd have to say that they've forfeited the claim to be "highly rational."