Thought Experiment

I quoted it in Post 1916.
This is what you quoted …

A stronger race will supplant the weaker, since the drive for life in its final form will decimate every ridiculous fetter of the so-called humaneness of individuals, in order to make place for the humaneness of nature, which destroys the weak to make place for the strong."
… which is followed by …
This quotation illustrates my assertion that Hitler promoted an evolutionary ethic.
and is from Richard WEIKART.

I would like to see where in Mein Kampf this comes from, as Weikhart is a young earth Creationist and from experience of quote mining from similar individuals, I'd like to see that your quote you claim comes from Mein Kampf actually does.

Even so, Darwin only describes what he saw in nature, and we can all see it for ourselves which is nature red in tooth and claw in a struggle for survival. Now according to you, God set this up. Hitler could just as easily looked at what you think of as God's creation and drew his "inspiration for genocide" from it.
 
Who made up the criteria that having the ability of abstract thought means you cannot be hurt?
Huh? No one. I can't see the relevance of that.
So you just made it up. Thanks for confirming that your morality is just based on your subjective opinion.
What about when you are sleeping or in a coma? Can you hurt someone in that condition and it will not be immoral?
In neither case does the person have those abilities.
Huh? I think you are misunderstanding me.

Of course it's immoral to harm someone whilst they are sleeping.
Not according to your criteria above about having abstract thought. I notice you didnt say it was immoral to kill someone in a coma. So you favor euthanasia like the Nazis?
Why is causing harm and suffering bad? Other animals cause harm and suffering and no one punishes them. Why should humans be punished for that and not other animals?
Because of what harm and suffering are of course.
What is harm and suffering? Is not using the your desired pronoun harm and suffering? Does killing your unborn child cause harm and suffering?
other animals aren't moral agents because they don't have the ability of abstract thought enabling them to reflect on the consequences of their actions.
But as I demonstrated above that is just your own subjective and arbitrary criteria.
I am not saying he necessarily read Darwin, but he used principles from evolutionary theory to justify his actions, like survival of the fittest.
Are you saying he understood those principles of evolutionary theory and acted accordingly, or are you drawing that conclusion because you see a correlation?
I am saying he used those principles give his racism and hatred a scientific justification.
I don't think you understand what survival of the fittest means. It's not about the strongest or most ruthless, it's about being best fitted to your environment. A sloth is very fitted to his environment but you can hardly say Hitler looked at sloths and decided to invade Poland because of a principle of evolution sloths live by.
Animals also attack and kill their competition. Ant colonies do this all the time. Survival of the fittest involves indirect and direct competition.
But because he believed in evolution, he failed to understand that humans and animals are not the same thing.
You make an awful lot of claims about Hitler, and give no support for them. I want quotes that support the above. Is this you drawing this conclusion that he must have thought like that?
See my quotes to Komodo.
Only humans are made in the image of God while animals are not. Only humans have a moral conscience and therefore are moral beings. So while animals are red in tooth and claw, humans are not.
But you're saying that Hitler looked at the animal kingdom and saw might makes right, which according to you is the way God set things up. So Hitler could have just as easily taken inspiration for his actions from God as evolution.
Yes, but Hitler ignored and didnt believe in the universal moral code established by God for humans. Where might makes right is wrong for humans. He considered humans just another animal with no real moral code.
 
So you just made it up. Thanks for confirming that your morality is just based on your subjective opinion.
Tis doesn't make clear what you said in your previous post. It seemed irrelevant, so I asked for clarification.
Not according to your criteria above about having abstract thought. I notice you didnt say it was immoral to kill someone in a coma. So you favor euthanasia like the Nazis?
You really aren't understanding what I'm saying, making you go off on tangents. Again, having the ability of abstract thought gives the ability to reflect on the consequences of your actions. In good part it's this that makes you a moral agent and lions not moral agents, because they don't have this ability.
What is harm and suffering?
You really have to ask?
Is not using the your desired pronoun harm and suffering?
What does this mean?
Does killing your unborn child cause harm and suffering?
Harm and suffering are are large part of morality but not all of morality and I'm speaking generally.
But as I demonstrated above that is just your own subjective and arbitrary criteria.
What you wrote above needs clarification.
I am saying he used those principles give his racism and hatred a scientific justification.
So his racism and hatred wasn't given rise to by Darwinism. You keep making this claim that Darwinism influenced Hitler but you give no clear justification.
Animals also attack and kill their competition. Ant colonies do this all the time. Survival of the fittest involves indirect and direct competition.
So? Understanding that doesn't automatically make someone an evil dictator, and you still haven't given a clear connection between evolution and Hitler's motivations.
See my quotes to Komodo.
No. Which post? You reply a lot to Komodo.
Yes, but Hitler ignored and didnt believe in the universal moral code established by God for humans. Where might makes right is wrong for humans. He considered humans just another animal with no real moral code.
But he loved his dogs.
 
That is not my argument. My argument is:
P1: If nontheistic evolution is true, then anything can be right.
P2: Hitler believed might makes right.
C: Hitler justified this belief and attempted to make its basis scientific by using the theory of evolution.
This is not a valid argument either; the conclusion does not follow from the premises. If you want to show that Hitler justified genocide and aggressive war by using the theory of evolution, you need tell us on what occasions he did this; you can't "deduce" his practice from the beliefs he held.
See my earlier post where I quote from his 1923 speech.
I would also dispute P1. It's a conclusion which itself needs to be proved.
If P1 is true, then morality is subjective and there is no universal right or wrong. All morals are just opinion. You deny this?
ETA: Note as well that P1 and P2 are inconsistent. If might makes right, then it it isn't the case that "anything can be right"; only things which are backed by might can be right.
Yes and anything can be backed up with might.
 
See my earlier post where I quote from his 1923 speech.
But you didn't "quote from" this speech, you only provided the speech's title! I asked if you had any link to the speech, and you did not offer any.

If P1 is true, then morality is subjective and there is no universal right or wrong. All morals are just opinion. You deny this?
Your claim was that Hitler "Hitler justified this belief [that might makes right] and attempted to make its basis scientific by using the theory of evolution." I said you had not offered any good reason to believe that claim; you then offered the above argument. I replied that the argument was not valid, and you do not dispute that.

I also said I disputed the first premise of your argument, that "If nontheistic evolution is true, then anything can be right." You do not defend that premise, you only ask if I deny that if your premise is true, then anything can be right! But what in the world is the point of asking this? Of course I don't deny that if your premise is true, it follows that your premise is true. But this adds no credibility at all to that premise, or to your argument built on it.
 
Adolf Hitler, "Weltjude and Weltborse, die Urschschuldigen am Weltkriege" April 13, 1923, in Hitler. Samtliche Aufzeichnungen, 1905-1924.
I can't find the text of this speech; I only see that Weikart apparently quoted or alluded to it. Do you have the text?
No, sorry.
A better P1 is that if nontheistic evolution is true then might does make right because actually there is no such thing as anything being morally right. No moral lawgiver means no moral laws.
First, you still haven't made a case for the claim that if Darwinian evolution is true, there is no such thing as anything being morally right.
Darwinian evolution is only true if materialism is true, and if materialism is true, then nonphysical entities like moral laws dont exist.
Second, this premise is actually no better for your purposes, because...

P1 If monotheistic evolution is true, does might make right.
P2 Hitler believed that might makes right
C. Therefore Hitler was influenced by his belief in evolution to conclude that might makes right
.

...is still not a valid argument.

And even if the argument were valid and sound, it would be moot, because you have already said you were not arguing that Hitler was influenced by his belief in evolution to conclude that might makes right.
Yes but Evolution confirmed (scientifically to him) that his previously held view that there is no such thing as objective moral laws.
 
No, sorry.
You had claimed that Hitler believed "if Darwinian evolution is true, then in actuality there is no such thing as morality," and you said (in October, in post #1918) that you had a quote which supported that claim. It looks as if you can't actually supply that quote, or (so far as I can remember) any quote which shows Hitler deriving moral relativism from Darwinian evolution.
 
Darwinian evolution is only true if materialism is true...
No, that's not the case at all. Darwin himself acknowledged that the beginning of life might be supernatural; this obviously implies that he thought evolution could be true, even if there were non-material causes in the world. A scientific theory which offers a natural/physical explanation for one phenomenon, does not thereby demonstrate that there are natural/physical explanations for all phenomena, let alone that all entities generally must be natural/physical.

In other words, "Natural processes such as mutations and natural selection explain the development of life over time, therefore materialism is true" is a non sequitur, just as much as "Natural processes such as gravity explain the orbits of the planets, therefore materialism is true." There are, of course, many, many theists who accept both evolution and gravity.
 
and if materialism is true, then nonphysical entities like moral laws dont exist.
And there are many, many people (including myself) who accept evolution and who also believe in the reality of moral laws. You have certainly not shown any contradiction between those two beliefs.

Yes but Evolution confirmed (scientifically to him) his previously held view that there is no such thing as objective moral laws.
I still have not seen any quote from Hitler establishing or even strongly suggesting that he denied the existence of objective moral laws, let alone that he thought evolution confirmed this.
 
But according to evolution there is nothing special about humans so that is just a subjective desire.
Evolution is a physical process, it can't have views. The above is your view given evolution, I see no necessity about it. There are many things special about humans, as there are many things special about other animals. Humans have the special trait of abstract thought, certain birds have the special trait of excellent eyesight, certain animals can run very fast etc etc.
Yes but your valuing of those things is just your subjective opinion. They dont have any real objective value outside of your mind.
Your whole morality is based on that subjective desire. But if Christianity is true, there is an objective morality regarding humans.
Why would God say that rape and murder are wrong?
Because such things hurt beings made in the image of the Creator of the universe who have infinite objective value.
 
Yes but your valuing of those things is just your subjective opinion. They dont have any real objective value outside of your mind.
Here is a dictionary definition of special ...

special
adjective
  1. 1.
    better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual.
    "they always made a special effort at Christmas"
    What I've said about us and other animals fits this definition.




Because such things hurt beings made in the image of the Creator of the universe who have infinite objective value.
So if a creature is hurt, but isn't made in the image of God, that doesn't matter?
 
Because such things hurt beings made in the image of the Creator of the universe who have infinite objective value.
if Genesis is true, “human beings are made in the image of God” is an objective truth. But “human beings therefore have infinite value” would still not be an objective truth.
 
Ok so you admit your morality is based on emotion, ie empathy. Hitler's was based on emotion as well not empathy but other emotions. So why is your morality better than his if they both are just based on emotion?
Empathy isn't the full story though, our ability to reflect on the consequences of our behaviour is also a key element. My morality is better than Hitler's because I can appreciate that harming others is wrong and I won't harm others because of it.
No, you feel that your morality is better than Hitlers but you dont have an objective standard to compare the two. You FEEL that harming others is wrong and it makes you feel bad when you see others do it. But you dont have any objective basis for believing that Hitler was wrong.
Why? It is an important moral issue.
Yes, but I just don't want to go there.
You dont want to say why?
Well from your answers above it appears that your morality is subjective so you answered my question above. Objective morality is an actual existing universal moral standard for all humans.
So, is something wrong because God says so, or does God say so because it's wrong?
Something is wrong because it goes against His objective moral character which is goodness itself.
Yes but thinking something is morally wrong doesnt make it actually morally wrong.
Of course it doesn't, it's the reasons one thinks it that count.
How do you know?
Not as badly. Up until recently most of Western civilization believed that there was an objective moral standard and thereby produced almost everything good about it.
There was never some golden age when all was right with the world. When was there slavery in the western world? Not recently.
Yes, Christianity ended slavery in the West. But now in Central and South America sex slavery is growing and spreading into America thru our open southern border.
 
No, you feel that your morality is better than Hitlers but you dont have an objective standard to compare the two. You FEEL that harming others is wrong and it makes you feel bad when you see others do it. But you dont have any objective basis for believing that Hitler was wrong.
No, I can also intellectually think it on the grounds that I don't want to be harmed so I know that others don't want to be harmed either. I know that to cause me harm is wrong because of what harm is and it's consequences, so I can appreciate it's wrong to cause others harm also.
You dont want to say why?
No.
Something is wrong because it goes against His objective moral character which is goodness itself.
So how does rape go against God's objective moral character? Why does it go against said character?
How do you know?
I could mistakenly think something is so, and if I do that the reasons I think it are wrong.
Yes, Christianity ended slavery in the West.
After starting it and watching it go on for centuries.
But now in Central and South America sex slavery is growing and spreading into America thru our open southern border.
Yes.
 
You are still not making even the beginning of a case for Darwin's culpability. Darwin made the observation that different species often compete for the same resources. He was far from being the first or only scientist to make that entirely correct observation. Hitler "deduced" from that observation that war is Nature's Way, that all is justified in a state of war, and that "Aryans" were at war with Jews. Darwin did not make any such deduction, or imply or suggest that any such deduction was reasonable; that was all Hitler. So how in the world does Darwin become complicit in Hitler's crimes against humanity?
I didnt say Darwin was complicit in Hitlers crimes only that Hitler used Darwins theory to justify what he did scientifically.
You haven't explained this, and you haven't answered the question: given that there is competition for resources in the natural world, should Darwin have refused to state that truth? Because that seems the only way, according to your reasoning here, that he could have avoided providing "support" for exterminations.
But humans are commanded to share resources by our creator. But since Hitler didnt believe in a personal creator he believed it was ok to exterminate his competiton like ants and other animals do because like Darwin he believed that humans are just another animal.
 
Yes, Christianity ended slavery in the West.
True, but bear in mind that the staunch defends of slavery were the "Bible Belt" states. The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the US, was founded specifically on the principle of slave owning.

After slavery was prohibited in the US, it was good Christian white folk who instituted the so-called "Jim Crow" laws to keep the black man down, and it was Christian organisations that were the last to abandon it. While segregation in public schools was illegal after 1954, it was still common in Christian schools for years to come. It was 1971 before Bob Jones University admitted black students, and 2000 before inter-racial dating was permitted.

So it is great Christians ended slavery, but keep that in perspective.
 
So it is great Christians ended slavery, but keep that in perspective.
You have mistaken those who are true Christians from those who are Christians in name only. A true Christian is one who practices the teachings of Christ which is summed up in loving God and loving people. Slavery is not based on love.

God knows those who truly belong to him.
 
Back
Top