Thought Experiment

[El Cid]

Did he strongly believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, or did he believe in the idea that Nature was trying to perfect species by guarding their purity, raising them to higher and higher levels until she reached her masterpiece, Man? Because you won't find the latter idea in Darwin.

Well unlike Darwin himself, he believed in a pantheistic version of Darwinism, he did believe it was guided by an impersonal force and not purely natural selection. More of guided natural selection. He believed that the Aryans were destined to be superior beings on earth. But apparently he believed that he was part of that guiding force so that by eliminating the unfit like the jews, he was helping his people reach their rightful place.

 

[Komodo]

Well unlike Darwin himself, he believed in a pantheistic version of Darwinism, he did believe it was guided by an impersonal force and not purely natural selection. More of guided natural selection. He believed that the Aryans were destined to be superior beings on earth. But apparently he believed that he was part of that guiding force so that by eliminating the unfit like the jews, he was helping his people reach their rightful place.

You are describing a "version of Darwinism" which has nothing in common with the version of Darwinism which exists in the writings of Charles Darwin.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You are describing a "version of Darwinism" which has nothing in common with the version of Darwinism which exists in the writings of Charles Darwin.

Darwin's writings are embarrassing. He just made crap up.

 

[Komodo]

Darwin's writings are embarrassing. He just made crap up.

If this comment were made by somebody readers knew to have read Darwin carefully, who had keen understanding and judgment, and who could be counted on to provide an honest, fair-minded account of his conclusions, it might be worth considering.

On the other hand, that kind of commenter probably wouldn’t just toss out a nine-word ”critique” like the above in the first place.

 

[El Cid]

No, Darwinian evolution claims to be able to explain human morality so it plainly is relevant to human morality.

It would then be "relevant to human morality" only in the sense that it proposes an explanation for why humans have a moral sense (i.e., that it was adaptive). It would not at all follow that those who accepted Darwinian evolution should therefore base their own sets of moral do's and don'ts on Darwinian evolution.

Yes, evolution claims to explain our moral feelings, but if Darwinian evolution is true, then in actuality there is no such thing as morality. There is no set of moral do's and don'ts. That is my point and that is what Hitler believed.

If you deny this, you should be able to provide the syllogism in which it does follow:

P1 Human beings are (largely) moral animals because morality is an adaptive advantage for us;
P2 (P3, P4, however many you need) _________________;
C Therefore, we should base our moral rules on Darwinian evolution; and therefore, anything we do is moral, so long as there is nothing within the Darwinian system to gainsay it.

I think you can see at a glance that it is impossible to get from P1 to C.

That is not the right syllogism.
P1 Human beings have feelings about morality that evolution claims have an adaptive advantage for us
P2 But no one really knows what adaptive advantage means.
C Therefore, if Darwinian evolution is true, there is no such thing as morality, therefore you can do whatever you want if you think it is an adaptive advantage for you.

ETA: Or to look at it another way, you might as well say "Plate tectonics explains the connection between India and the rest of Asia; therefore, plate tectonics is relevant to that connection; therefore, it is a serious failing that plate tectonics provides no reason why India shouldn't declare war on China."

Not believing in an objectively real morality WAS relevant in the development of Hitler and the Nazis.

Exactly, if atheistic or pantheistic evolution is true then all morality is just based on human sentiment or emotional preference. Nothing objectively rational. Unlike Christianity. And Hitler by emphasizing human evolution exploited that fact by saying scientifically morality has been proven to be subjective and relative thereby providing an opening for genocide.

When did Hitler ever say that science had proven morality to be subjective? Let alone, "morality is subjective, so I can kill anybody I want"??

In Mein Kampf Hitler argues that all ethical and aesthetic ideas - indeed all ideas except those that are purely logical deductions - are dependent on the human mind and have no existence apart from humans, who have not always existed.

 

[Whatsisface]

Yes, evolution claims to explain our moral feelings, but if Darwinian evolution is true, then in actuality there is no such thing as morality. There is no set of moral do's and don'ts. That is my point and that is what Hitler believed.

Morality is to do with fairness, right and wrong as well as empathy. The ideas of fairness, right and wrong, and what actions are fair, right or wrong are abstract concepts that can occur to minds capable of abstract thought no matter their origin. Whether our minds come from an intelligent design or from evolution has no bearing on their ability to consider fairness, right and wrong. What makes us moral agents is the ability to reflect on the consequences of our actions. Our origins have no bearing on this.

I rather think that Hitler did not believe these things about evolution, if he thought about them at all. Seems to me you're trying to fit the world to your view of it rather than letting the world inform your view of it.

 

[Komodo]

Yes, evolution claims to explain our moral feelings, but if Darwinian evolution is true, then in actuality there is no such thing as morality. There is no set of moral do's and don'ts. That is my point and that is what Hitler believed.

That is not the right syllogism.
P1 Human beings have feelings about morality that evolution claims have an adaptive advantage for us
P2 But no one really knows what adaptive advantage means.

If you mean, "nobody can define 'adaptive advantage'," then the premise is false. We can easily define adaptive advantage as "something which makes it likelier that its possessor survives and has offspring." If you mean "nobody can determine in advance, with certainty, whether or not a particular action will help them survive and have offspring," that's generally true but it's irrelevant to your conclusion.

C Therefore, if Darwinian evolution is true, there is no such thing as morality, therefore you can do whatever you want if you think it is an adaptive advantage for you.

There is no "therefore" here at all. This is not in any way a valid proof, because the conclusion is a complete non sequitur. Your two premises don't add up to any conclusion at all, so far as I can tell.

"If Darwin was right about humans having moral feelings because such feelings are an adaptive advantage, there is no such thing as morality" makes no more sense than "If Darwin was right about humans having depth perception because such perception is an adaptive advantage, there is no such thing as distance." In both cases it is entirely possible that evolution provides us with the mental or visual tools to perceive something that really exists. (In the latter case, obviously, it's certain that this is what has happened.)

Not believing in an objectively real morality WAS relevant in the development of Hitler and the Nazis.

In Mein Kampf Hitler argues that all ethical and aesthetic ideas - indeed all ideas except those that are purely logical deductions - are dependent on the human mind and have no existence apart from humans, who have not always existed.

If you're talking about the passage beginning "Certain ideas are even confined to certain people," this is not an argument that morality has no real existence, it's an argument that certain political ideals -- the example he gives is pacifism -- are only "carried" by certain races, presumably because they are the only ones with the mental or spiritual capacity to conceive them. And of course at no point does he say or imply anything like "As Darwin proved..."

So, you still have not offered any reason to believe that anything Darwin said about evolution and natural selection could in any halfway rational way be "translated" into Nazism. If they could be so translated, but only in an entirely perverse way which employed wild leaps of illogic ("Darwin said that all animals compete, so it is right for me to kill my enemies"), that is not the fault of Darwin or Darwin's writing.

 

[El Cid]

I don't think this is the full picture, there is a major part of human morality you are leaving out.

You do know that you are responding to my post to Algor right? My point was responding to Algor who was trying to claim that evolution is like all these other scientific fields which have nothing to do with morality, but plainly he was wrong because any theory that claims to explain where humans come from would also be intimately involved with one of our main beliefs, the belief that there are morals that affect our behavior.

Evolution has given us empathy which can help us act morally towards others which is what you might be referring to, but that's not the full picture.

How do you know that evolution has given us empathy? Empathy is an emotion which could actually hurt our genetic fitness. It causes us to keep alive people who have genetic defects and allow them to reproduce, thereby hurting human survival in the long run.

It's also given us self consciousness and the ability of abstract thought. The basic ideas of morality, fairness, right and wrong are abstract concepts, so we can intellectually reflect on our behaviour and the behaviour of others and judge how fair, right or wrong that behaviour is. Our intellect can allows us to rise above our Darwinian instincts as far as morality is concerned.

So now you are contradicting yourself, above you said empathy was given to us by evolution but now you are saying that we have risen above the instincts and emotions that evolution has given us. But again, if Darwinian evolution is true, then there is no such thing as morality, fairness, right or wrong. Those are just subjective preferences like your favorite ice cream. Jeffrey Dahmer did nothing objectively wrong.

 

[Whatsisface]

You do know that you are responding to my post to Algor right? My point was responding to Algor who was trying to claim that evolution is like all these other scientific fields which have nothing to do with morality, but plainly he was wrong because any theory that claims to explain where humans come from would also be intimately involved with one of our main beliefs, the belief that there are morals that affect our behavior.

I'm not going to comment as I don't know the context.

How do you know that evolution has given us empathy? Empathy is an emotion which could actually hurt our genetic fitness. It causes us to keep alive people who have genetic defects and allow them to reproduce, thereby hurting human survival in the long run.

Because I think empathy is connected to survival. We evolved as a tribal species where our individual survival depended on the strength of the tribe. Empathy helped the tribe members care for each other, increasing their survival chances.

So now you are contradicting yourself, above you said empathy was given to us by evolution but now you are saying that we have risen above the instincts and emotions that evolution has given us.

I was talking generally, there is no contradiction with empathy and what we think about right and wrong working in harmony if we choose to do so.

But again, if Darwinian evolution is true, then there is no such thing as morality, fairness, right or wrong. Those are just subjective preferences like your favorite ice cream. Jeffrey Dahmer did nothing objectively wrong.

I disagree and it's as if you haven't understood my main point. Fairness, right and wrong and what constitutes fairness, right and wrong are abstract concepts that will be realised by creatures capable of abstract thought, no matter their origins. The foundations of morality are there whether we evolved or not.

Whether what Jeffrey Dahmer did was objectively or subjectively wrong is a moot point. But most of us know he did wrong, including himself. The way you are putting it describes arbitrary morality, not subjective morality.

 

[Whatsisface]

Darwin's writings are embarrassing. He just made crap up.

Why do you say things like this? To the vast majority of experts who have studied biology you are wrong. How deeply have you studied biology?

 

[Komodo]

But again, if Darwinian evolution is true, then there is no such thing as morality, fairness, right or wrong.

No, that does not follow. See if you can provide a valid argument, with sound premises, beginning "Darwinian evolution is true" and concluding "there is no such thing as morality, etc." I don't think you can.

 

[El Cid]

I'm skeptical that the acquired knowledge was acquired in a way that wasn't entirely natural.
I suspect that under proper scrutiny, it doesn't hold up.

How could a woman describe a shoe on the roof of the hospital when she never left the operating room?

 

[Tetsugaku]

How could a woman describe a shoe on the roof of the hospital when she never left the operating room?

You might find this an interesting read: https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/1996/07/22165033/p27.pdf

 

[El Cid]

Compatibilism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Compatibilism - SEP article discussion

Free will is an endlessly thorny topic, yet one with many significant implications for religion. I've found that most Christians - as well as many atheists - hold to an intuitive incompatibilist and contra-causal conception without being particularly informed of the alternative positions...

forums.carm.org

Neither free will nor logical reasoning has anything to do with going beyond one's programming.

If materialism is true, nothing in those arguments for compatibilism refute the Consequence Argument. Which what I am referring to by programming by natural law.

 

[Tetsugaku]

If materialism is true, nothing in those arguments for compatibilism refute the Consequence Argument. Which what I am referring to by programming by natural law.

Read the thread I linked you to. Compatibilism refutes the consequence argument.

 

[El Cid]

The evidence is the messy arc of human knowledge over time and the above is absolute nonsense. What they are finding is that there are generationally inherited patterns of environmental coping.

I will take that as unable to provide. And one of the greatest linguists in the world Noam Chomsky agrees with my statement.

 

[El Cid]

living things are different than inanimate objects that are only affected by the forces of nature.

You are assuming what you need to prove. According to evolutionists living things are affected by the forces of nature as well and fundamentally no different from inanimate objects.

 

[El Cid]

No, Darwinian evolution claims to be able to explain human morality so it plainly is relevant to human morality. No other scientific theory makes that claim.

What exactly does Darwinian emotion say about morality?
I suspect that it offers an explanation for why we are moral as opposed to defining what is morally good or bad.

Yes, because if Darwinian evolution is true, there is no such thing as good or bad. It is just personal preference.

Exactly, if atheistic or pantheistic evolution is true then all morality is just based on human sentiment or emotional preference. Nothing objectively rational. Unlike Christianity.

Christianity is also based on human sentiment and emotional preference. Christianity is a story about humans told by humans.

No, if the Christian God exists, and there is strong evidence He does, then morality objectively exists as derived from the objectively existing moral character of God.

And Hitler by emphasizing human evolution exploited that fact by saying scientifically morality has been proven to be subjective and relative thereby providing an opening for genocide.

And also opening the door for much good.

Hitler opened the door for good? Are you serious?

Either way, actions are the key issue.
A good deed for the wrong reasons has the affect of a good deed for the right reasons.
And vice versa.

But how do you know what a good deed is? Hitler thought he was doing a good deed. Can show objectively that he was wrong?

There is evidence that the Dutch reformed Church became liberal in the 1960s thereby rejecting biblical authority. So it was irrelevant to them whether the Bible justifies racism ultimately. But only someone that is already inherently racist can justify racism from actually reading and studying the Bible.

The Bible is essentially a Rorschach. The reader brings their own experiences and interpretations
It's just like reading horoscopes, the text is vague and ambiguous enough to be interpreted through the reader's own filter.

No, the correct interpretation can be determined in most cases by looking at the linguistic and historical context. Especially using the original languages.

Yes, but the Bible can be proven using the grammatico-historical hermeneutic objectively to be strongly anti-racism.

I am not saying that evolution was the main driving force of Nazism but it was definitely one of the justifications for it.

Just as the Bible is used to justify all sorts of positions and biases.

Yes, but the correct position and interpretation can be shown which is correct using the above methodology.

That someone can use either as justification for a position doesn't mean that the position is warranted or promoted.

Yes, but evolution has justified much greater evil than the justifications using the bible. The justification for killing millions by the Nazis and communists was much justified by evolution at least for a significant part.

Especially to justify it to academia and the intelligentsia. Goebbels especially propagated it for that class. However, it definitely was the foundation of the Nazi eugenic program.

Be that as it may, it's not a commentary on the theory of evolution.

True it does not prove or disprove evolution, but it plainly has produced many negative consequences in modern world. But it's accuracy can be shown to be problematic by science.

 

[El Cid]

Jeffrey Dahmer thought he was experiencing good when he murdered and ate parts of his victims. If goodness is just experientially grounded then it is subjective and can mean anything. It has to exist objectively, and be discovered or revealed, otherwise it can mean anything.

How do know he thought he was doing/experiencing good? Here is a quote from his confession to the police.

Dahmer waived his right to have a lawyer present throughout his interrogations,[235] adding he wished to confess all as he had "created this horror and it only makes sense I do everything to put an end to it.

Found here.

Doesn't sound like it was as you describe.

He may have only said that to get sympathy from the judge. But anyway my main point is my second sentence. If goodness is just experientially grounded then it is subjective and can mean anything. It has to exist objectively and be discovered or revealed, otherwise it can mean anything. Hitler definitely at least said he was doing good by eliminating the jews. So how do you know he is wrong if morality is experientially grounded?

 

[Whatsisface]

He may have only said that to get sympathy from the judge.

Really? He knew he wasn't going to be free again, but when he said this to the police it was in interview, the judge wasn't there. And even so, you don't know he thought he was doing good which was your claim.

But anyway my main point is my second sentence. If goodness is just experientially grounded then it is subjective and can mean anything. It has to exist objectively and be discovered or revealed, otherwise it can mean anything.

I don't know what you mean by goodness being experientially grounded. But subjective morality doesn't mean arbitrary morality which is what you're describing.

Hitler definitely at least said he was doing good by eliminating the jews. So how do you know he is wrong if morality is experientially grounded?

Quote please.