On some level, but if multiple individuals who where monsters grouped up, wouldn't that make a group of monsters?
I mean that a group can be monstrous, but it's not really the group that's the monster, it's the individuals that make up the monstrous group that are truly the monsters... So to speak...
I agree.
For example, Cookie Monster seems to be a single entity rather than a race of sugar hungry and wheat crazed super beings who can mimic carpets.
The context is a fictional diary in a film called the Odessa Files, it is a diary of a holocaust survivor who witnesses a German officer killed by an SS man, he states that he does not hate the Germans and that only individuals are monsterous not peoples.
Oh, hmmm, well that kind of complicates things. In that situation I think you need to get rid of the notion that monstrosity is a dichotomous trait (I'm not sure if I said that right). Basically, in that context the "monstrosity" of the group and individual is largely subjective. Uhh, what am I trying to say? Basically, in that context I think it's both. Basically, I think that everyone doing monstrous (I'm starting to dislike that word, as it seems to be standing in for something else.) is a monster on some level, regardless of whether they are doing it because of orders or because they truly are that kind of person. But, in turn, the group that they are a part of tends to take on a monstrous tendancy of it's own, it gains its own momentum so to speak.
Sorry, I'm having difficulty organizing my thoughts right now for some reason.
Basically, the individual is the monster in my opinion, but the group takes on traits which are common among individuals within the group. (I hope you can follow me at least a little. )
Not nations, peoples or groups.
Would you agree with that?
no, people can do horrible things against their will in a group of monsters. this would mean that the person who does those things against his will is not a monster, but he still does monstrous acts due to monstrous group. but if we take it literally, monster is a word that is used when talking about an single creature
"Monstrosity" is not really a stable trait of personality; it's just a word that we use to describe someone who has committed acts that we deem monstrous. As such, it makes little sense to argue that some distinction ought be made when applying the term to individuals and groups. If it is legitimate to call an individual who has committed monstrous acts a "monster," then it is equally legitimate to call a group of people who have committed monstrous acts "monsters."
The only potential problem is that the label will be given to the wrong group (e.g., "Germans are monsters, because Germans were Nazis, and Nazis massacred the Jews"), but that's a category/logical issue and not really an issue with the meaning or application of the word.
Did you ever think that cookie monster and oscar the grouch or elmo were related?
"Monstrosity" is not really a stable trait of personality; it's just a word that we use to describe someone who has committed acts that we deem monstrous. As such, it makes little sense to argue that some distinction ought be made when applying the term to individuals and groups. If it is legitimate to call an individual who has committed monstrous acts a "monster," then it is equally legitimate to call a group of people who have committed monstrous acts "monsters."
The only potential problem is that the label will be given to the wrong group (e.g., "Germans are monsters, because Germans were Nazis, and Nazis massacred the Jews"), but that's a category/logical issue and not really an issue with the meaning or application of the word.
Did you ever think that cookie monster and oscar the grouch or elmo were related?