PDA

View Full Version : Was George Washington an evil man?



Radman500
03-06-2012, 05:26 PM
Remember he had slaves. Was Washington truly evil

GeneralTrumbo
03-06-2012, 05:27 PM
I think some of the ways he went about things wasn't great. But, he was a very​ good leader.

The13Doctors
03-06-2012, 05:29 PM
Evil is subjective. There is no "evil". Life isn't so Black and White.

kriegerdesgottes
03-06-2012, 05:29 PM
Washington was the first and only President of the U.S. to request that all of his slaves be released upon his death. His wife Martha kept some anyway though.

Assassin_M
03-06-2012, 05:30 PM
Everyone has the goods and bads.. you cant consider someone evil for doing one bad thing and you cant consider him a saint for doing one good thing either..
He was a great, yet, as every man, faulted leader

eagleforlife1
03-06-2012, 05:31 PM
He was a great, yet, as every man, faulted leader

I'm not even a leader so how can I be a faulted leader?

kriegerdesgottes
03-06-2012, 05:31 PM
Evil is subjective. There is no "evil". Life isn't so Black and White.

That is the second time today I've seen you post a pretty liberal comment :P. By that logic murder, slavery and rape are not evil because some may not consider it evil.........but they are.

LightRey
03-06-2012, 05:32 PM
Evil is subjective. There is no "evil". Life isn't so Black and White.

"Good" and "Evil" are terms made up by man based on our common goals and interests.

Assassin_M
03-06-2012, 05:34 PM
I'm not even a leader so how can I be a faulted leader?
Words betrayed me there, I meant to make the word "Fault" exclusive to "man" not leader..

Ledachh11
03-06-2012, 05:35 PM
Generally I'd say no. But Washington wasn't that fantastic a military leader indeed one of his criticisms was that he just kept running away whenever the british approached, and to be fair, he did.

freddie_1897
03-06-2012, 05:36 PM
he was an incredible man, who changed the course of history, but back then it was common to have slaves, and don't think I'm being patriotic, I'm English

Radman500
03-06-2012, 05:36 PM
Generally I'd say no. But Washington wasn't that fantastic a military leader indeed one of his criticisms was that he just kept running away whenever the british approached, and to be fair, he did.

He was not the best general but he was a great leader trust me there two completely different things

SixKeys
03-06-2012, 05:36 PM
That is the second time today I've seen you post a pretty liberal comment :P. By that logic murder, slavery and rape are not evil because some may not consider it evil.........but they are.

What's wrong with liberal comments?

Evil is a man-made concept, there is no universal morality. Otherwise the entire animal kingdom would be "evil" since they kill and rape other animals all the time. Things just are, and we as a society determine the terms by which we label things, based on long-term benefits to the majority.

Assassin_M
03-06-2012, 05:37 PM
he was an incredible man, who changed the course of history, but back then it was common to have slaves, and don't think I'm being patriotic, I'm English
Its ok to admire a historical character..
even if he did drive your country out of theirs..

kriegerdesgottes
03-06-2012, 05:39 PM
What's wrong with liberal comments?

Evil is a man-made concept, there is no universal morality. Otherwise the entire animal kingdom would be "evil" since they kill and rape other animals all the time. Things just are, and we as a society determine the terms by which we label things, based on long-term benefits to the majority.

I disagree. Animals were not created to live by the natural laws of good and evil. They were created to sustain us and nature not to pass the test of life ;). However I feel that we will only continue to disagree so let's agree to disagree and end this conversation.

Radman500
03-06-2012, 05:39 PM
Is there a difference in your guys opinions. Washington was a good leader but a bad general

tarrero
03-06-2012, 05:46 PM
Vlad Tepes is considered a national Hero is his country....
And MANY people around the world worship the Roman Empire, and well, during their "expansion" , they killed MILLIONS......
This is relative..

kriegerdesgottes
03-06-2012, 05:49 PM
The concepts of good and evil are not relative it's the heart of man that is relative. Killing thousands of Ottoman Turks on pikes is Evil, The Romans did many evil things in their time as well and yes they are both celebrated by some but that doesn't make what they did any less evil. That just means some are either ignorant or sick enough to look past that which is evil.

The13Doctors
03-06-2012, 05:52 PM
I have no problem being called a liberal. Expect my sort of responses to threads often.

I stand on what I said.

Evil is a subjective term which is solely based on opinion.

Also, we have all done our fair share of wrong and right things.

kriegerdesgottes
03-06-2012, 05:54 PM
I have no problem being called a liberal. Expect my sort of responses to threads often.

I stand on what I said.

Evil is a subjective term which is solely based on opinion.

Also, we have all done our fair share of wrong and right things.

This we can agree on :) except the subjective part which I disagree with :P lol.

tarrero
03-06-2012, 05:54 PM
The concepts of good and evil are not relative it's the heart of man that is relative..

That is a very interesting thought, however my point, is that almost every act, man or nation, may have both "good" things and bad "things.

kriegerdesgottes
03-06-2012, 05:56 PM
That is a very interesting thought, however my point, is that almost every act, man or nation, may have both "good" things and bad "things.

Certainly true.

brick177
03-06-2012, 06:02 PM
Generally I'd say no. But Washington wasn't that fantastic a military leader indeed one of his criticisms was that he just kept running away whenever the british approached, and to be fair, he did.

It is called the Fabian Military Strategy. If faced with an overwhelming military power, do not confront the power head on in battle, but attack quickly and retreat quickly in a series of limited engagements to wear out the enemy. The British Empire back then was like the United States today. Don't engage head on and you can wear out the resolve of the people to continue the war.

ACSineQuaNon
03-06-2012, 07:07 PM
Evil is subjective. There is no "evil". Life isn't so Black and White.

Lulz...so Hitler wasn't evil?

LightRey
03-06-2012, 07:15 PM
Lulz...so Hitler wasn't evil?

Not in his own eyes and considering how many people followed him, not in the eyes of many others either.

UrDeviant1
03-06-2012, 07:24 PM
George (that's right, we're on a first name basis) Inherited his first batch of slaves from his father when I think he was about 11. This never stopped him from gaining more In his adult years, It's said he had about 300 at his manor. Bit hypocritical right?

To me, the word 'Evil' Implies there Is something Inside you, making you so. I believe there's only Right and Wrong, not Good and Evil. Also I think It depends on Religious belief, cause' Isn't Evil something made up by Christians or something?

Steww-
03-06-2012, 07:31 PM
Theists would argue morality is objective, in the sense there is a universal right or wrong.
Atheists often argue that morality is subjective, so what Hitler done was both right and wrong (for different people).

Either way, I can't wait to see how Ubisoft portray Washington. It should be interesting.

CrazySN
03-06-2012, 07:32 PM
Lulz...so Hitler wasn't evil?

There is a saying from Shakespeare, and the saying is "nothing is good or bad, but thinking it makes it so." Every action done in the world can be justified as good or bad, as it really is just a matter of opinion. However, there is a difference between what is good and bad and what is right and wrong.

It's like the case with a lost item. Giving it to somebody that needs it can be justified as good or bad, just as giving it to yourself can be justified as good or bad. Yet, it is generally accepted that it is "right" to give a lost item to the police as the item may be returned to it's owner, and it gives order to society.

Even Hitler's actions could be justified as being "good," as his actions of war actually led to the recovery of many countries economies, like the US, therefore saving millions of lives in return of killing millions. However, is actions are accepted as "wrong" for his crimes against humanity.

SixKeys
03-06-2012, 07:48 PM
History is written by the conquerors. Had the Nazis won WWII, you bet a lot of people would still be praising Hitler today.

While I don't believe in "evil" as something concrete, like a supernatural force or an absolute universal truth, I do believe there are certain things that can and should, in a progressive society, always be considered as positive or negative based on their long-term consequences. We think slavery is bad because we believe equality for all is better in the long-term. If everyone has equal rights and freedoms, more people will be able to contribute and lend their strengths to the benefit of the society. Therefore I wouldn't describe slavery as evil since "evil" is a term of moral absolutes, but I would describe it as "bad", as in harmful or negative because of the way it impedes progress. Killing others is generally considered bad because it's more beneficial for societies in the long term if people work together.

Radman500
08-09-2012, 03:04 PM
was he a good man or a evil man?

Radman500
08-09-2012, 03:26 PM
Didn't Washington order his troops to slaughter natives

kriegerdesgottes
08-09-2012, 03:32 PM
Didn't Washington order his troops to slaughter natives

Yes

beatledude210
08-09-2012, 04:29 PM
Didn't Washington order his troops to slaughter natives

Yes he did, but war is war. I highly doubt he laughed maniacally and grinned when he burnt down Native villages. The natives were causing a lot of trouble for the Continentals and if he wanted to win the war he would have to suppress their threat. Was it right? No. But when has war ever been right? Didn't President Truman order two A-bomb drops on cities killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people? I'm pretty sure that alone killed killed more people than George Washington did. Was that right? No. It because he knew it would help to end the war in the Pacific theater and suppress the threat there. Was it done out of evil? No, it was not. It is the same with Washington.

Locopells
08-09-2012, 04:42 PM
Isn't this is at least the third thread you've started on this topic today?

MT4K
08-09-2012, 04:49 PM
Isn't this is at least the third thread you've started on this topic today?

Almost. His threads ask different questions which is why i left them.

Although in the future if he or anybody else has multiple questions that relate to a similar theme (Washington for example). It might be worth combining all questions in a single place :P.

Locopells
08-09-2012, 04:52 PM
Fair enough.

fullrules
09-07-2015, 04:23 PM
at the time slaves were common and no one saw keep them as wrong

VestigialLlama4
09-07-2015, 05:18 PM
at the time slaves were common and no one saw keep them as wrong

That's not true at all and Washington himself is proof of that. He was the only major founding father to actually liberate his slaves at the time of his death because he did feel guilty about it as time passed, which doesn't sound much but it speaks to his credit when contrasted against Thomas Jefferson who we all know today to be a major hypocrite. In Washington's time you had many abolitionists working in America and some of the Northern states, New York for instance, succeded in passing legislation curtailing slavery. In England you had an active abolitionist campaign and many Englishmen such as Samuel Johnson criticized Americans for preaching freedom while owning slaves. Likewise, the French Revolution (feared for being too "radical") was explicitly anti-racist and anti-slavery and in 1793 France became the first nation to abolish slavery in an act of law, which was later abrogated by Napoleon sadly enough.