system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I have question about Marcus Aurélius

In his books of Meditations marcus, for my intenting, says that there's is no destition from good and evil, the actions can only be percieved as good or evil If the observer views them as such, and the way to know how you should act to do good is If the action benefits the whole (aka the "City") right? (Hope I got that right). But, for example, we can make the case that Hitler thought that what he did was for the good or huminaty (the whole), and if so, does that mean that something that is normaly seen as objetive atrocities againts mankind, can in fact be an act of good, if thought by Marcus way?

I hope was clear, I currently reading it and got stuck in this dilema.
Cheers!
gpt
This is a misreading of Marcus. Virtue is objectively good, vice objectively bad, and helping others or the community is an objective matter of promoting their virtue and restraining their vice. For instance, when Marcus is angry at people, he doesn’t think that he’s justified in being angry. He thinks he’s making a mistake, and he tries to correct that mistake. Thinking that you’re doing the right thing does not make it the case that you are doing the right thing. Thinking that you’re helping others, or the whole community, does not make it the case that you are helping others or the whole the community.