Ellen,

Thanks for the explanation and clarification. Your first post of 18 Feb. made a lot of sense and I can see where us "boys" kind of got off track, at least this "boy." One difference between the male and female genders is that men tend to be detail and "crisis" oriented while females tend to be process and "event" oriented. [NOTE: the above statement is a generalization, and any one example of a gender could be very different from my description - FD] What I mean is this, when I am confronted with a problem I tend to look no further than its immediate source and most proximate solution. My wife, on the other hand, is much more deliberate and attempts to find the more extended history and more tangent solutions. This is no small source of irritation to me when I want to get something FIXED now. I see this not only documented in scholarly publications, but also in any room full of 5 year old girls and boys.

So, Ellen, when I saw the mention of Hitler, et. al., I zeroed in on a historical person (or event, as in the case of the bomb) and his/her/its relation to history and in the process kind of just blipped right over your intention.

In response to your next to last post, I think you are absolutely correct in stating that it is a psychological trait inherent within all of us (male and female) that looks toward a single leader. In times of crises in particular, but also in times of peace, we congregate around someone who demonstrates vision, clarity of thought, decisiveness, and for want of a better term, charisma. I do not think this is a bad thing, per se. Like so many of our human quirks and "instincts," I believe it is truly an amoral trait. For much of our existance it is so automatic that we do not even recognize it. Little boys on a playground will select two "leaders" to choose up sides for a baseball game. They may not be the best players, but they may be recognized for choosing the best teams, or because they own the baseball and bats, or they may be the neighborhood bullies. Ever watch little girls at a sleepover? Within 15 minutes you can identify the exact pecking order of perceived social standing within the group, from the dominant "mother hen" to the shy little "wallflower." I may be overstating my case here, but I just think it is so inherent within us that it is part of what makes us human. I do not think it can be identified as a failing because it is the visionaries, the real decisive people that have kept our species alive as long as it has existed. (think of the harnessing of fire as a tool, to the discovery of penicilin.) They also are responsible for all we consider art. Vision and decision and charisma make us human and we could no more remove them from our psyches than we could remove our brain.

Now, the real crux of this discussion is our moral evaluation of the results of these visionaries, decision makers, and charismatics. You said, and I think correctly, that many will follow orders because they believe the leader and want to perpetuate the atrocities we have been discussing. Likewise, some see the brilliance and positive results of the vision of their leader and want to reap its benefits. Others, and please do not discount this, follow orders to stay alive. Those who challenged Hitler or Hussein were not thanked for their constructive criticism. Is one decision more moral than the other? If you gas Jews just to stay alive does that make you less culpable? Conversely, if you fought to free the slaves were you more moral than a Confederate rebel? This, among others, was the great question at Nuremburg.

And so, Ellen, one of my super-simplistic and testosterone driven male answers to your very interesting question is the mystical world of morality. Why was there a Hitler? begs the question of Why was there a Lincoln? Gandhi and King were cut from the same bolt of cloth as Osama Bin Laden, yet we in the west view Gandhi and King as moral and Bin Laden as immoral. When we begin to break down cultures and sub-cultures and eventually get to each individual we see larger and larger differences as to what we consider moral, or acceptable, and immoral, or unacceptable. I, for one, consider the use of the atomic bomb to be moral based on what it prevented and what it ended. I would assume you would consider it immoral based on what it caused, and its larger statement of the futility of war. For every "X" that I think is immoral, there is likely someone else who thinks it is not only moral, but necessary.

If, and that is a big if, I am correct, the question moves from a psychological one to a metaphysical one, and I am running low on brain cells right now.

Thanks again, and my best regards,

Freightdawg