... Those rulers, organisators and heads every time are being considered to be in guilt of such action. We curse Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc. making from them monsters. However, I personally do not see great difference between them and modern teenagers who play strategies on PC, they also have maps, calculations, cold reasoning etc.

I hate to rain on your little analogy with anything this drearily obvious, but surely the distinction is that computer games are virtual and reality is well...not. If somebody 'kills' a few thosand 'people' in a computer game they know perfectly well it's not real- not any more real than somebody who 'kills' that many people in a book. Whereas rulers like Mao and Hitler knew perfectly well that they were killing real people.

With regards to your question: who is more immoral, the dictators or the people following orders - it is probably wrong to be deciding who is "more" immoral, but rather to assess the nature or intention. For instance, we take Hitler as being "evil" because of his intent to harm by attempting to create his own race, whereas soldiers will follow orders to preserve the integrity and honour of their country by which they serve, and if this means killing, it is perhaps a cost that has to be made.

If we take an instance where soldiers are killing innocent people under order, we have to take into considerations other than they are immoral as to why they are doing it. Perhaps if they disobey orders, their fate will be severe punishment or any other factor. We cannot assume that they are evil and wicked based on purely their actions. Having said that, if they intend to harm on "evil" principles, they they are equally immoral as the dictators. Also, even if they do not share this vision of evil that a dictator may have, they may be unaware of what they are doing. War propaganda may state they are doing their country a national service or they are told the people they are killing are fighting against the country - anything.

Ultimatly one has to asses both the individual evil of the director of others, and the evil of the society that allowed them to gain power. Hitler was voted in. He used thugs, sure, but that there were thousands of ex-soldiers willing to do his bidding, and thousands of police officers willing to look the other way says alot. However to a great extent Lenin, and to an even greater exten Stalin, forced themselves on the Russian people- the majority of Russians were peasants, and the workers became their new masters, the peasents voted against them and were ignore, most of the peasants were religous and were ruled over by those intent on destroying it. Each different case must be assesed in its own light.

I tell thee: Kill the person thy neighbour. Think that's my order. If thou thou dost that, I shall really not care: I can't see blood, neither have I anger. The word 'reality' does not matter, that's just a word to which we ascribe meaning only due to our up-bringing, conditioning and so forth. Feelings matters, nothing: if I do not see, there is no feeling, no sensation, therefore the fruits of evil cannot be reapen.

The only person whom I can honestly say is immoral is myself. But the funny thing is, I can't even remember all the immoral things I've done. I know that I have done some but there could be far more than that based solely on what I consider immoral too. To be honest I don't care about anyone else in terms of moral or immoral. I don't see the point of doing it.

Me being insulting is pointless

I tell thee: Kill the person thy neighbour. Think that's my order. If thou thou dost that, I shall really not care: I can't see blood, neither have I anger. The word 'reality' does not matter, that's just a word to which we ascribe meaning only due to our up-bringing, conditioning and so forth. Feelings matters, nothing: if I do not see, there is no feeling, no sensation, therefore the fruits of evil cannot be reapen.

That the psychology of a military leader has some relationship to that of a gamer seems plausible.

I think however a fundamental aspect of being a moral human being is being aware of when actual human beings are being affected.

Also I would not want to argue that most of us are better people than Hitler, with the basis being that we haven't had millions of people killed. We obviously have never been in the same location as Hitler, and thus have no basis for arguing that we would act differently (as a determinist I think the idea that we would be different from Hitler, if we were Hitler, is silly).

I am a determinist too (or let's say so for the sake of argument) but although if I were Hitler, I could not be someone else than Hitler, that does not mean that if I were Hitler I could not have done something different from what Hitler did, and in fact, that does not mean that HItler himself could not have done something different than he actually did. He could have if he had chosen to do something different. That is consistent with determinism, isn't it?

What is involved when you refer to someone 'choosing to do something'.

I'm a materialist, when I think of someone choosing something the picture I have is of a system of neurons firing in a particular arrangement, which leads to the body connected to the neurons doing something. Where is the choice here, the ability to do differently.

Also my moral point is I think it is very dangerous both intellectually and morally to think that if we were in the position of someone who made horrifically obscene choices we would act differently. Because very possible we wouldn't.

That the psychology of a military leader has some relationship to that of a gamer seems plausible.

I think however a fundamental aspect of being a moral human being is being aware of when actual human beings are being affected.

Also I would not want to argue that most of us are better people than Hitler, with the basis being that we haven't had millions of people killed. We obviously have never been in the same location as Hitler, and thus have no basis for arguing that we would act differently (as a determinist I think the idea that we would be different from Hitler, if we were Hitler, is silly).