Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress

_{Mario Lopez

July 8, 2009

Darwinism, Ethics, Evolution, Human evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This should be interesting:

Book Description

In this book, Weikart helps unlock the mystery of Hitler’s evil by vividly demonstrating the surprising conclusion that Hitler’s immorality flowed from a coherent ethic. Hitler was inspired by evolutionary ethics to pursue the utopian project of biologically improving the human race. This ethic underlay or influenced almost every major feature of Nazi policy: eugenics (i.e., measures to improve human heredity, including compulsory sterilization), euthanasia, racism, population expansion, offensive warfare, and racial extermination.

More…

Comments

"The Theory of Evolution has the support of almost 2 centuries of scientific discovery from a variety of disciplines." Could we please stop making such claims. If such information were available and anyone who comes here could present it, then this site would close down. We have an advantage because we know that such information does not exist. So when someone makes this or similar claims it leads nowhere because the person claiming it can not back it up. It has happened hundreds of times here and in public debates.jerry_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

BillB,
If I throw someone of another race off a cliff and cite Newton as my inspiration would you claim that his laws of motion are racist? or that gravity is racist?
Well that depends, what about the theory of gravity claims that whites are more gravitationally inclined than blacks? I think people are confusing an idealogical bias with a logical conclusion. If you acknowledge the theory of evolution to be true, then you also believe that blacks are closer to their ape-like ancestors, making them less "evolved" than say white Europeans who are further developed. This is the logical objective conclusion one comes to when adopting the theory of evolution to be true, regardless of one's own opinion on racial equality. The theory of evolution entails that blacks are more primitive than whites, period. The laws of motion do not.PaulN_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

Upright - 19: I don't see any observation or critique of the theory here. It comes across as a blunderbuss ad hominem attack - 'If you believe in evolution then you are racist'. As other have pointed out, all the evidence of Darwin as a person points to someone who was remarkably liberal (in terms of ideas about race) for his time, and that is largely irrelevant as it has little bearing on whether evolution occurs. The evidence for the Nazis taking Darwin as an inspiration is scarce to the point of being virtually non existent. If I throw someone of another race off a cliff and cite Newton as my inspiration would you claim that his laws of motion are racist? or that gravity is racist?BillB_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

@15
It is that Hitler’s whole ethic (as per the book in question) was based on Darwinian evolutionary concepts.
Darwinian evolution explains evolution through natural selection. Hitler's practise of eugenics is artificial selection, something practised long before Darwin.
Social Darwinism is Darwinism in practice! Period.
Social Darwinism has nothing to do with biological natural selection.
They merely took Darwinian evolution as a fact, took it to its logical conclusions and thus realized that (under that paradigm)humans are no more valuable than a monkey or dog. That’s why the SS could kill without the slightest tinge of conscience - in their minds they were killing animals, subhumans at most. Like shooting ducks in their minds. Darwin's conclusions were that there was very little biological differences between the races. Darwin also abhored slavery.
Darwin did indeed consider some races as “inferior” or “superior”. Those 2 words riddle his works. (As do the words “let us assume” and derivatives).
If there are so many examples of calling a race inferior or superior than it should be real easy to find a quote.
Nazism was based largely on polygenic (or polyphyletic if you please) Darwinism - something Darwin himself most certainly believed and view that only started to lose popularity after WWII! Yet is still believed by many today.
This is complete b.s. Borne then quotes Darwin. Darwin is talking about the civilized vs the uncivilized, and yes Darwin does thinkg the his culture is a more civilized state. But he does not think there is a large biological difference among the races
Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole structure be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man.
hdx_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

PaulN,
Evolution has not been verified, tested, and observed to anywhere near the extent of gravity, in fact I’d say that every attempt to do so with the ToE thus far has fallen incredibly short of the standard that defines the scientific field of physics which is readily observable.
Excellent point, PaulN. Can _any_ of the evos point to specific quantitative predictions that follow from the tenants of evolution, which have been confirmed empirically? I thought not...herb_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

Anthony,
Evolution is a descriptive theory, similar to gravity and the germ theory of disease.
The theory of evolution is nothing like the theory of gravity, where extremely precise calculations and correlative factors can be determined with hard numbers. Evolution has not been verified, tested, and observed to anywhere near the extent of gravity, in fact I'd say that every attempt to do so with the ToE thus far has fallen incredibly short of the standard that defines the scientific field of physics which is readily observable. Comparing evolution to gravity is like comparing highly speculative, questionable and elaborate ideas to real-world observed events- oh wait...PaulN_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

Anthony would prefer it if the reigning ideology were not subject to observation and critique. Please everyone, go home.Upright BiPed_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

Evolution is a descriptive theory, similar to gravity and the germ theory of disease. "Social Darwinism is Darwinism in practice! Period." "Putting Darwinism into practice" makes as much sense as going around and pushing people off of tall objects in order to "put the theory of gravity" into practice. Let's just call this whole thread what it is-- and what much of this website is-- a simple attempt at guilt by association.Anthony09_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

Borne, You are clearly missing my point. Whatever twisted logic the Nazis may have used to justify their actions has no bearing on whether or not evolution occurred, or indeed whether or not an intelligent designer was involved. The Theory of Evolution has the support of almost 2 centuries of scientific discovery from a variety of disciplines. To whatever extent Hitler got his inspiration from Darwin, it has no impact on the validity of the Theory of Evolution, or even the Theory of Intelligent Design for that matter.ppb_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

The simple fact is that ideas have consequences. Darwinism is no exception.herb_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

"ppb" (#11) asked: "So why is this book of any interest in the Evolution/ID debate? Because creationists never miss an opportunity in their absurd attempts to connect Hitler and Darwin. See, for instance, Coral Ridge Ministries' film - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_Ridge_Ministries#Darwin.27s_Deadly_Legacy What creationists always conveniently neglect to mention is that Darwin is not mentioned in "Mein Kampf" at all, whereas God is mentioned prominently and favorably in Hitler's writings. And creationists also conveniently neglect to mention the part that Martin Luther played in the development of Nazi anti-Semitism - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_LiesPaulBurnett_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

ppb :
...It is not as if Hitler’s ideas about it would have any bearing on whether or not evolution occurred.
You miss the point entirely. As do most Darwinists, and many others also, on the issue. It is not that Hitler was a Darwinist therefore Darwinism is wrong. Its not that Darwin himself was evil or would have condoned the Nazis - certainly he would not have. Darwin himself was something like Dawkins - one who believes in unguided and purposeless molecule to man evolution, but who would not want to live in a country with Darwinian based morals! Ideas have consequences! It is that Hitler's whole ethic (as per the book in question) was based on Darwinian evolutionary concepts. And Hitler's conclusions were not illogical, nor were they distortions of Darwinian theory put in practice (often called social Darwinism). Social Darwinism is Darwinism in practice! Period. Hitler's conclusions - indeed those of all the scientists he had on board the Nazi juggernaut - were simply logical conclusions easily deduced. Not distortions at all. They merely took Darwinian evolution as a fact, took it to its logical conclusions and thus realized that (under that paradigm)humans are no more valuable than a monkey or dog. That's why the SS could kill without the slightest tinge of conscience - in their minds they were killing animals, subhumans at most. Like shooting ducks in their minds. Hitler considered blacks to be "monsters" - inferior to whites because of standard evolutionary doctrine, not in spite of or in disregard to it's 'real' meaning. If Darwinism were true, then indeed, humans have nothing special to separate them from mere animals. In that case why should it be morally wrong to kill other humans one considers, under support of the scientific consensus, to be sub-human and less evolved? There is no reason under atheist Darwinism. And I have heard Darwinists say as much! Look up Peter Singer's moral diarrhea. Darwin did indeed consider some races as "inferior" or "superior". Those 2 words riddle his works. (As do the words "let us assume" and derivatives). Your whole argument is ignorance based and does not correspond to either logic or the historical facts. Nazism was based largely on polygenic (or polyphyletic if you please) Darwinism - something Darwin himself most certainly believed and view that only started to lose popularity after WWII! Yet is still believed by many today.
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.
~ William Provine, Cornell prof. And in Darwin's own words:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p.236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. - DOM, ch. ON THE BIRTHPLACE AND ANTIQUITY OF MAN
The Nazis were merely taking Darwin's word and deciding to fulfill the prediction themselves! Weikart is merely giving the accurate historical account with it's logical connections and he right.Borne_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

And Rudolph Hess got his biology degree from where?ppb_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

@11 From the book description: Hitler was inspired by evolutionary ethics to pursue the utopian project of biologically improving the human race. Of course since selective breeding had been perfomed 1000s of years before Darwin, the Nazi concept of evolution had little to do with Darwin's writing (ie Hitle never mentions common descent or natural selection in creating new species)hdx_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

National Socialism is nothing but applied biology. ~ Rudolph Hessbevets_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

So why is this book of any interest in the Evolution/ID debate?ppb_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

I just noticed that the original post nor the book description on Amazon mentions Darwin. I am sure he gets mentioned in the book some place. On the video I linked to above there is a mention of a Nazi ethic.jerry_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

"Post-Darwin anthropologists tended to by polygenist, regarding different races as separate species, some being little more evolved than apes," This was certainly Ernst Haeckel's view and he was German and I believe influential in Germany on evolution.jerry_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

The most interesting thing about this is the price. It is listed at $80 for a 268 page book. Has Weimar Germany prices hit the book industry?jerry_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

1) Darwin believed there was very little biological differences between the various races and that humans can readily interbreed, showing a common ancestry of humans and showing that humans can be grouped as one species. 2) Monogenists before Darwin in general did not regard the races as being equal and neither did polygenists. Just because others after Darwin ignored Darwin's arguments, does not make evolutionary theory racist. People (monogenists and polygenists) were racist before and after Darwin. Darwin's writing were not racist at all. But my point was that Darwin was one of the first people to bring real solid evidence (as shown in point 1) to the idea of monogenism. 3)No one actually responded to the fact that the master Aryan race concept came from a creationist, while Darwin stated that the races have “similar inventive or mental powers” and there is “similarity between the men of all races in tastes, dispositions and habits”. He “doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant. “ He even thought highly of Africans writing “I always thought well of the negroes, from the little which I have seen of them; and I have been delighted to have my vague impressions confirmed, and their character and mental powers so ably discussed.” 4) And just to add a few more items Darwin did not feel that anyone should be prevented from breeding (Unlike the Nazi and the eugenic movement) and Darwin felt that there were more important things than natural selection. “Important as the struggle for existence has been and even still is, yet as far as the highest part of man's nature is concerned there are other agencies more important. For the moral qualities are advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more through the effects of habit, the reasoning powers, instruction, religion, than through natural selection”.hdx_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

"Of course Darwins evidence for a common descent of all humans destroyed Gobineau’s views." Darwin never had any evidence for common descent. Today it is still speculation though common ancestry is strongly supported for a high number of organisms using genomic data but not common descent. Before one runs off in either direction on the overall topic, it may be interesting for those who want to weigh in on this debate to see what Richard Weikart has to say on this. There is an hour video on Youtube and his doctoral dissertation was on this topic and he also wrote a previous book on it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6Ajerry_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

hdx, In fact, Darwin's theory did not result in all the races being seen as the same species. Pre-Darwin physical anthropology was monogenist, meaning all races were seen as one human species. Post-Darwin anthropologists tended to by polygenist, regarding different races as separate species, some being little more evolved than apes, others (i.e. Europeans) being a much more advanced species. See my post here.jlid_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

tribune7, If the "facts" are irrelevant why point them out?ppb_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

I could never understand the fascination for Hitler that critics of evolutionary theory have. Pointing out facts isn't the same as having a fascination for.tribune7_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

The person who developed the idea of the Aryan master race was Arthur de Gobineau. Here is what he said about human origins: We must, of course, acknowledge that Adam is the ancestor of the white race. The scriptures are evidently meant to be so understood, for the generations deriving from him are certainly white. This being admitted there is nothing to show that, in the view of the first compilers of the Adamite genealogies, those outside the white race were counted as part of the species at all. - Arthur de Gobineau; An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, 1853 Of course Darwins evidence for a common descent of all humans destroyed Gobineau's views.hdx_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

I could never understand the fascination for Hitler that critics of evolutionary theory have. It is not as if Hitler's ideas about it would have any bearing on whether or not evolution occurred. Would these same critics reject nuclear physics if Hitler had developed the a-bomb first?ppb_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 9 10 11

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply