Thought Experiment

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?

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.

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.
 
As I just noted, this doesn't seem to have any relevance to your claim that if Darwinian evolution is true, there is no such thing as morality. In fact I have a hard time guessing what possible claim of yours (about Darwin, or Hitler) it is relevant to. You had been arguing, until now, that Hitler seized on the concept of "survival of the fittest" in Darwin. because Hitler was utterly devoted to the survival of the "Aryan race," and thought nothing else could matter more than that. Now you seem to completely reverse yourself, claiming that if Darwin was right, this whole "survival" business is NBD; some people think it's good to survive, others don't, who can possibly say? How can you possibly argue that Hitler was picking up on this "implication" of Darwin? (And how do you conclude that is the implication of Origin of Species? What's the logic?) Are you saying that the Jews were only the first stop on Hitler's program, that if he had won the war he would have sought the annihilation of the human race in order to preserve other species?

[Continued]
No my point is that Hitler arbitrarily chose Aryans to survive and Jews to destroy. If atheistic evolution is true, then his arbitrary choice is not immoral. Since evolution is ultimately random processes therefore which race of humans survive is arbitrary or random anyway, so he did nothing wrong. It is like one colony of red ants choosing to destroy a colony of black ants. Nothing immoral about that.
 
I made the following claim:

"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.)
But moral laws are nonphysical. How can natural selection select for an ought? It can only select for an IS.
And this was your answer:



How does this address my point? I'm not saying that morality is nothing but feelings, and in fact I don't believe that morality is nothing but feelings. Even if I did believe that morality was nothing but feelings, I would not claim that Darwin had proved me right, because he didn't.

Let's try it this way; tell me if you dispute either the validity of this argument, or either of its premises:

P1: it is possible for evolution to cause us to perceive something as true, which is actually, objectively true. (For example, our perception of the three-dimensional arrangement of objects in space)
P2: If it is possible that evolution causes us to perceive something as true, which is actually, objectively true, then it is fallacious to say "if evolution causes us to perceive X to be true, it can't be actually, objectively true."
C: Therefore, it is fallacious to say "if evolution causes us perceive morality to be true, it can't be actually, objectively true."

[Continued]
Natural selection doesnt select for what is true, it only selects for what helps living things to survive. For example, natural selection selects for roaches that hide under rocks. But then millions of years later, when humans have shoes and throw some away out into the woods a roach will hide under a shoe "thinking" it is a rock. So it is false that the roach is hiding under a rock. And nothing in its natural selection revealed it to be actually hiding under a shoe. And an early human hunting an elk, doesnt need to know 2 + 2 = 4 is true, in order to kill an elk for food, so natural selection is not going to select for that ability.
 
The fact that you cannot provide anything resembling a logical argument which begins with a distinctive claim of Darwin's and ends in "the Jews must be annihilated" is itself telling. And you aren't providing a logical argument here. There is no logic at all in "Competition sometimes results in extinction, therefore I should drive these particular foes of mine to extinction." It makes not the slightest bit of sense, and to say "I'm speeding up the process" does not endow it with a smidgen of sense. Again, it's comparable to "objects at great heights sometimes fall and are destroyed, therefore I should throw these objects down to their destruction."
No, he viewed the Jews as his competition for resources just like a red ant colony views, not consciously of course, a black ant colony as their competition and attacks the black colony. So to Hitler because Nature does this, then his extermination of the Jews is justified because it is natural.
 
You are using the word advantage in a different context to the survival advantage meaning. The advantage in evolutionary terms refers to an advantage for the survival of humans, not, it's an advantage to the world in general for humans to survive
But you want humans throughout the world to survive. But according to evolution there is nothing special about humans so that is just a subjective desire. Your whole morality is based on that subjective desire. But if Christianity is true, there is an objective morality regarding humans.
 
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.
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?
 
Why is our survival important?
It isn't, but it's what drives evolution and empathy.
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?
Why do half the people in America have no empathy for unborn children?
I'm not getting into the weeds about abortion. Sorry.
Why? It is an important moral issue.
What is the objective foundation of your morality?
It's hard to know what you mean by objective morality. I've already given where I think morality, be it objective or subjective, comes from.
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.
No, it is a very important point.
Most people want to live according to what is real objectively. If morality is subjective then it does not actually exist.
Of course it does. If someone subjectively thinks murder is wrong, that's a moral thought.
Yes but thinking something is morally wrong doesnt make it actually morally wrong.
So if people believe that, then morality is relative and it begins the slippery slope to moral anarchy which then results in government imposed restrictions on people's behavior thereby resulting in tyranny.
People who think morality objective still behave badly.
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.
 
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.
Why? It is an important moral issue.
Yes, but I just don't want to go there.
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?
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.
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.
 
No, he viewed the Jews as his competition for resources just like a red ant colony views, not consciously of course, a black ant colony as their competition and attacks the black colony. So to Hitler because Nature does this, then his extermination of the Jews is justified because it is natural.
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?

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.
 
I agreed with that in my initial response, but I think it would be more precise to say, "Evolution does not in itself offer any conclusion about one species being more special or valuable than any other species; it leaves the question of 'value' alone." But that does not mean we could not, on other grounds, regard humans as more special or valuable than other species. Similarly, astronomy does not in itself offer any conclusion about one star or planet being more special or valuable than any other star or planet, but that does not mean we could not reasonably regard the earth as more special and valuable than Pluto.
But that would just be our own subjective value we would place on humans and some planet. It would not be intrinsic objective value. If the Christian God exists then we have intrinsic objective value.
 
But moral laws are nonphysical. How can natural selection select for an ought? It can only select for an IS.
Natural selection selects for capacities, instincts and behavioral tendencies, whether you call such things "is's" or "oughts". Apparently in humans it selects for the capacity to have thoughts about what we ought to do, such as "do unto others what you would have them do unto ourselves," and the behavioral tendency to mostly-kind-of-sort-of follow that rule.

The issue in question is, assuming that these thoughts and tendencies are the product of natural selection, does it follow that there can be no objective truth to the claim that "we ought to do unto others what we would have them do unto ourselves"? You say that it does follow, and I say it does not follow. It might be the case that we are "wired" to come to certain conclusions because they are adaptive, and that those conclusions are objectively true. Why should it be the case that no conclusion we are biased to accept because of natural selection can possibly be a true conclusion? Does that make sense?
 
Some scholars mentioned in the article say they didn't think it refutes it either.
Which scholars, and what are their reasons? Better yet, what are your reasons for disagreeing with the compatibilist rebuttal of the consequence argument?
 
Which scholars, and what are their reasons? Better yet, what are your reasons for disagreeing with the compatibilist rebuttal of the consequence argument?
Because as your article says: "But if what we do is simply the consequence of the laws of nature and the state of the world in the distant past—then we cannot do anything other than what we ultimately do. Nor are we in any meaningful sense the ultimate causal source of our actions, since they have their causal origins in the laws of nature and the state of the world long ago. Determinism therefore seems to prevent human agents from having the freedom to do otherwise, and it also seems to prevent them from being the sources of their actions. If either of these is true, then it’s doubtful that human agents are free or responsible for their actions in any meaningful sense." First you have to refute that if pure materialism is true, then the above is not true.
 
Because as your article says: "But if what we do is simply the consequence of the laws of nature...
You're just quoting the bit that presents the consequence argument. I'm asking for your reasons for rejecting the compatibilist rebuttal of that argument, as presented further on in the article.
 
I said MAY, I didnt say I knew for certain. But many criminals say similar things to get sympathy, like saying they are now a born again Christian.
So I take you won't say in future that Dahmer thought he was doing good with such certainty?
I will try to remember. But that wasnt my main point anyway.
I was responding to Algor who said that goodness experientially grounded. Subjective and arbitrary morality are similar. They both can be anything since they dont have an objective foundation. And since they dont have an objective foundation, then they can mean anything. If your morality is just based on subjective feelings, then you can feel that Jews should not be exterminated but Hamas feels that they should, then how do you prove who is right?
What you are now describing is just arbitrary morality, not subjective morality. No one goes around genuinely thinking rape is a moral good.
I notice you didnt answer my question. Does that confirm my point that you can't prove who is right if morality is subjective? Actually earlier in this thread I demonstrated that the Aztecs and other central American Indians DID think rape was a moral good. At least the male leaders of the society did.
If morality is subjective then it is just a matter of opinion or personal preference. But if the Christian God exists then there is an objective foundation to morality.
 
I still need further explanation. What do you mean by a standard for goodness? There is no scale for goodness like there is for temperature, which has a standard of either Fahrenheit or Celsius.
Our standard for goodness is Gods moral character as revealed in His written moral laws in the Bible.
 
No my point is that Hitler arbitrarily chose Aryans to survive and Jews to destroy. If atheistic evolution is true, then his arbitrary choice is not immoral. Since evolution is ultimately random processes therefore which race of humans survive is arbitrary or random anyway, so he did nothing wrong. It is like one colony of red ants choosing to destroy a colony of black ants. Nothing immoral about that.
What makes someone a moral agent is their ability to understand the consequences of their actions. The process by which they achieve that understanding is irrelevant.
 
Back
Top