I believe the point is that Zarathushtra is an ETHICIST. He is preoccupied by what makes us who we are to ourselves. That is what ethics is all about. Zarathushtra's ideal is to live an ethical life, which made his doctrine extremely radical at the time, and it still is. Radical egalitarianism, pro-science (even if there was no scientific discourse at the time, Dino, there certainly was a scientific mindset at play, especially in The Gathas), the understanding that MInd and Outside World are different worlds altogether. Hitler's worldview was just narcissistic and banal aesthetics with no ethics involved at all. As you would expect from a psychotic dictator. You could not be further removed from that than Zarathushtra is. And as for killing life, and this sometimes being correct, this is when removing one "life" leaves place for further life. Of course this is complex and open to arguments when practiced, but the principle remains right because it is founded in the love of this world (and the ethical imperative to love the world, no matter what, Zarathushtra's strong ethical principle) as opposed to the making of oneself as a bitter enemy against the world. Never forget that Hitler began his worldview as hatred and revenge in the ditches of the First World War. Making yourself a "victim of life itself" is the total opposite of the Zoroastrian mindset.
2009/6/21 Special Kain
The only problem is that science as we know it didn't exist at the time, so science wasn't involved. And even science abandoned the notion of objectivity, replacing objectivity with intersubjective agreement and functionality. Good is whatever is widely agree on to be good in a given situation or a cultural setting. Thus, there's always a cultural bias involved (rather than scientific discoveries, since this cultural bias is also interfering with science, see heteronormativity in evolutionary biology and zoology). And even economies play a major role, since economic interests often shape scientific and philosophical interests.
In this sense we can't say that the Nazis were objectively evil (or objectively good). There was no immaterial and astral entitiy called "Div" floating through the streets in German cities in the 1930's, secretly programming the people to make objectively bad choices. Life is much more complex than cartoon characters!
There are constructive habits and there are destructive habits. So, I agree with Kamran that good and evil should be dealt with differently: namely, ethically. Whatever pushes, supports and strengthens LIFE is good, whatever denies it is bad. But what about abortion and euthanasia? This is where Kamran's metaphor is getting even more complicated.
Betreff: [Ushta] Gatha's view of Good and Bad
Datum: Sonntag, 21. Juni 2009, 0:41
Zarathustra has a very objective and non-biased analysis of what is considered Good in the world and what is Bad.
He draws his conclusions by an endless and progressive scientific observation of the human society, nature, and incorporates the laws and findings of all sciences including physics, biology, chemistry, psychology, etc into depicting what is a Good action and what is a Bad One. Obviously what Hitler did for the supremacy a certainly Evil and Demonic. The spirit of Div was with Hitler and the Nazi party. You have seek deep into Hitler's life and German culture to find who were the divs and if there was any Godly at all. Maybe it was all a battle between two Evils and Divs worldly exploitive Jews and Racist Hating Nazis in a Evil Conquest for Power. It is not necessary that in every war there is a Good side and Evil side. There could be two Good sides but one Is Better. There also could be Two Evil Sides they are equally Evil or One is Less Evil or More.