MF======
>In response to Glenn's attempt (for the sake of argument alone) to justify
>Hitler's actions on evolutionary terms alone:
>
>Nice try, Glenn. However, your explanation lacks any reference to moral
>norms. On your (argument's) terms, Hitler was exceedingly stupid. But in
>order for your explanation to succed, you must demonstrate that actions
>decreasing the fitness of society as a whole are actually objectively wrong
>as judged by some transcendent moral standard. You must smuggle in the
>premise that "to decrease society's fitness is wrong." Whence comes this
>assumption? If you reply that wrong is defined as decreasing society's
>fitness, then your argument reduces to a tautology, namely 'What Hitler did
>was wrong because what Hitler did was wrong."
>
and later added the correction:
MF:======
>Oops! Sorry, Glenn. I meant to say _censure_, not _justify_ Hitler's
>actions. I don't know what I was thinking when I said that. Sorry about the
>confusion.
>
>Anyway, the arguments still stands. Evolutionary theory cannot provide a
>standard of moral absolutes.
As Steve keeps insisting, we have to distinguish between evolution
science and the philosophy (or religion if you wish) of evolutionism.
Evolution science and any other science cannot make any value
judgements so we must be talking of evolutionism.
So, in response to your statement " Evolutionary theory cannot
provide a standard of moral absolutes" I would say of course not,
no scientific theory can do this. If we change this to "Evolutionism
cannot provide a standard of moral absolutes" then we have a
somewhat :) irrational statement since evolutionism would claim
that there are no moral absolutes.
But Jim's challenge wasn't to find moral absolutes from
evolutionism. Here's the challenge once again:
============== Jim's Challenge =====================
Sorry, but Hitler saw it in different terms. He saw himself
purging society of detritus. In evolutionary terms, you can't
prove him wrong.
On moral terms, of course, you can. But that's the point:
Our moral terms come from a moral source. Evolutionism
doesn't have that available to it.
====================================================
Well, If Glenn was brave enough to try ...
I'm sort of at a disadvantage since I don't actually know much about
evolutionism. Presumably though, survival must be high on the
list of evolutionism's creed. So, Hitler thought that the survival
of himself and his society would be enhanced by "purging society of
detritus". But, you see, evolution does not reward good intentions,
it rewards success. Hitler and his society did not survive, this
proves that his actions, no matter how noble ;-), were flawed.
Why may they have been flawed? Many reasons. First he failed
to consider that many memebers of society find comfort and meaning
by helping others, as irrational as this may seem. Also, its a good
idea to keep some human debris around to remind one of how
superior one is. Hitler also miscalculated on how the rest of the
world would respond to his actions.
But the bottom line is that Hitler's actions must have been wrong
because his society did not survive. Survival is #1.
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz
Bastion for the naturalistic |
rulers of science |