What do you mean "causing violence?" It sounds like you're suggesting Hitler's moving of his arm somehow caused violence. Can you explain how that could possibly be true under your model of "arm movements don't matter"?
As far as I know, Hitler himself never struck anyone with an outstretched hand. Certainly that's not the crime he's accused of. I don't think you can actually prove that Hitler's arm movements had any causal relationship to the Holocaust, to be honest. So presumably he's in the clear, and there's no reason a normal person would've cared about Hitler's arm movements in the 30s and 40s, correct?
As far as I know, Hitler himself just said words. Same with Pol Pot, Hirohito, Mao, Stalin, and Lenin. How could you possibly attribute violence to any of that under your model of "I'm so smart I can't see causation or intent?"
unless you're punching or stabbing someone I really do not care what way you move your arm, whether it's associated with something 80 years ago or not.
Okay so a politician who orders the state to go hunt down your family is in the clear, the guy who drives the secret police to your house is in the clear, but the guys who actually place hands on your children are fully culpable.
Am I understanding correctly?
yes you are understanding correctly? what's so hard about understanding that?? By your logic the SS did nothing wrong because they were following orders? Does this work for positives too like if a doctor saves someones life they didn't actually do anything good at all it was their boss who hired them? Everyone is accountable for their own actions. If you can be convinced to do something evil by someone else that's your own problem.
Lmao
You: "Giving orders to do evil is morally fine"
Me: "No I don't think so"
You: "Oh okay, so acting on orders to do evil is morally fine?!"
Uhh, nope.
What a topsy-turvy moral world you've built for yourself. Such is the challenge of an unprincipled man.
Ah, so Hitler did nothing wrong. Peak HN here, ladies and gentlemen.