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

Following up: I first observe that the is-ought gap has been raised by Severski and by LH. I cite LH at 165:
. . . You’re conflating “is” with “ought” by reading a “purpose” into a descriptive theory of changes in allele frequencies over time.
The REAL problem my dear sirs, is that evolutionary materialism is not "just" a theory of allelle frequencies, it is a worldview core claim motivated on the claim tha ti t is practically certain "science," a claim that de-moralises the world for those who adhere to it. And, amorality is ever an enabler of immorality. So, we need to learn some lessons from painful history. In that context, I observe that -- quite predictably JT et al (I cross reference a parallel discussion, pardon . . . ) -- a mere link to relevant facts (as I gave at 111 above) is not enough to get a focus on the merits of the issue. So, I must now take up the painful duty of actually citing just how herr Schicklegruber and his ghostwriters drew a significant part of their inspiration form the stream of Darwinism that dews upon Descent of Man and flowed through German culture. Ch XI Mein Kampf (which I refuse to link): ______________ >>Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents . . . Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable. [Ever so "creationist, nuh?] The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice [Here read, Germans vs Poles, Jews, Gypsies, blacks, Amerindians etc, all of whom feartured in Nazi propaganda, and before that in some of the Kaiser's propaganda; i.e much of that Austrian lance corporal's view was shaped in the matrix of German WW I propaganda (as well as in the matrix of the pre-1914 Viennese popular press and street), which BTW was explicitly a motivating factor in Bryan's stance against evoltuionism] . . . . In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. [That is, survival of the fittest, for food and for reproduction, including Darwinian sexual selection.] And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development. [Darwinian natural selection leading to evolution, in a nutshell] If the process were different, all further and higher development would cease and the opposite would occur. For, since the inferior always predominates numerically over the best [NB: this is a theme in Darwin's discussion of the Irish, the Scots and the English in Descent], if both had the same possibility of preserving life and propagating, the inferior would multiply so much more rapidly that in the end the best would inevitably be driven into the background, unless a correction of this state of affairs were undertaken. Nature does just this by subjecting the weaker part to such severe living conditions that by them alone the number is limited, and by not permitting the remainder to increase promiscuously, but making a new and ruthless choice according to strength and health . . . >> _________________ Just where in Darwin's corpus does this draw upon? We can look to the intro to Origin, and to Ch 6 in Descent: ________________ ORIGIN, INTRO: >> [T]he Struggle for Existence amongst all organic beings throughout the world . . . inevitably follows from the high geometrical ratio of their increase . . . This is the doctrine of Malthus, applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms. As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form. This fundamental subject of Natural Selection . . . almost inevitably causes much Extinction of the less improved forms of life, and leads to what I have called Divergence of Character . . . . I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive, means of modification. >> CH 1 DESCENT, OPENING ARGUMENT: >> . . . The enquirer would next come to the important point, whether man tends to increase at so rapid a rate, as to lead to occasional severe struggles for existence; and consequently to beneficial variations, whether in body or mind, being preserved, and injurious ones eliminated. Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct? We shall see that all these questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals . . . >> CH 6, DESCENT: >> Man is liable to numerous, slight, and diversified variations, which are induced by the same general causes, are governed and transmitted in accordance with the same general laws, as in the lower animals. Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence, and consequently to natural selection. He has given rise to many races, some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species . . . . 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, 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. [NB: Despite some nive remarks on nego regiments in an 1873 letter, the above remarks stand unaltered int eh 1874 Edn of Descent, i.e it is plain that Darwin retained his same scientific views, and failed to address the moral hazard running through the middle of his work. So, as we studyrt he ethical issues of science and society, we need to learn form that and to address relevasnt issues ont he merits, however painful they must be.]>> _______________ The above should suffice to show that Darwin was indeed a social Darwinist, and that the stream of social darwinist thought stemming from Darwin had in it a major moral hazard that had extremely damaging consequences -- and not just in Germany. As tot he immoral equicvalency argumets on Christinas etc, I will simply observe that to resort ot racism, such have had to twist or ignore the plain and easily accessible teachings of the NT especially. For instance we may read in Ac 17, as Paul challenges the Athenian elites in AD 50:
24"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'
In short, there are resources to address th issue, and a general context that acknowledges thqat morality is an ever present issue that leads to an ever present challenge ot repentance and reformation. (I note too that many early C20 Fundamentalists were what we would call today theistic evolutionists, and at the fringes we have those who ascribed then and now to polyphyletic theories of evolution, including some pretty serious heresies on who are descended from Adam.] this is getting longish so now I will break for the very refreshing 1897 - 8 HG Wells remarks on the moral hazard that so stains the history of the century just past with blood . . . GEM of TKI PS: BillB just above, you are cross-threading out of context. However, much of the above is indeed a manifestation of selectively hyperskeptical thinking int eh teeth of easily accessible facts as I have just posted. I think there is a duty tot he truth in public commentary, and I believe with good reason.kairosfocus_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT}

tribune7 (229), you wrote: "If the ToE is right — man is not a special creation — then what Hitler did was not immoral." OK - so by your thinking, if you feed a small kitten into your waste disposal unit and switch it on, then that is not immoral because cats & kittens are not a special creation. Correct?Gaz_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT}

Berceuse-213
it should’ve gone without saying that I meant completely materialistic evolution.
Clearly not. You have missed the point - the ToE makes no references to gods or creation, theism or atheism. Materialistic and theistic evolution are both ways of incorporating the SAME theory into ones own set of beliefs.
“Given the connection of Hitler’s behavior to the theory of evolution, does our moral outrage serve to undermine the theory of evolution itself?” I don’t see how it does not.
Given the connection between the nuking of Japanese cities in WW2 and Einstein shouldn't our moral outrage undermine atomic theory its self? Given the connection between Luther's antisemitism and Hitlers shouldn't our moral outrage undermine protestantism? Given that the ToE, like any other scientific theory, doesn't prescribe behavior or moral codes it is hard to see why anyones attempt to claim that it prescribes the behavior that they personally want to indulge in would undermine it, the same applies to the Bible:
I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord..
"It wasn't my fault I threw that woman off a cliff, Newtons laws compelled me to"BillB_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PDT}

tribune7-229-230
What the ToE addresses is the nature of man.
Wrong.
If man is not inherently different than a pig, no more a special creation than a pig, then man can be slaughtered like a pig.
Wrong. Darwin never claimed that humans and pigs were the same species. The ToE makes no claims about the existence of god or whether that god regards humans as special. The ToE does not prescribe behavior in the way religion does, it does not demand that humans do anything in particular. It is descriptive of nature not prescriptive.
If the ToE is right — man is not a special creation — then what Hitler did was not immoral.
Once again - The ToE makes no claims about the existence of god or whether that god regards humans as special.
Darwin made the philosophical claim that man is just another animal.
If you want someone to blame try Carl Linnaeus, the church certainly did at the time.
Without Darwin, they wouldn’t have happened.
Its a shame we can't wind the clock back, change history and turn your blind assertion into an empirical observation. Of course we have to ignore the pre-existence of racism in general, the antisemitism promoted by Martin Luther, selective breeding and of course the claims of Hitler himself:
I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord..
Of course without Einstein hundreds of thousands of Japanese would not have died - Ideas have consequences. So what has this got to do with ID?
... the persistence of such an irrelevant argument reflects rhetorical, closed minded objectionism through the use of red herrings to lead out to handy, set up, oil-soaked strawmen that can be ignited to distract attention, and cloud and poison the atmosphere of discussion...
Quite right KF, lets stick to discussing science and ID.BillB_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
01:55 AM
1
01
55
AM
PDT}

Something just occurred to me, Jerry, which I overlooked by focusing on the history. @227 you wrote:
If you want to deny that eugenicists were primarily influenced by Darwin’s writings, go ahead but to try and put this on someone else is a joke.
This is actually a fairly bizarre thing to say given the post of mine you were responding to:
Jerry, no one is disputing that eugenics drew from Darwin to justify itself. It drew heavily from Mendel too. Is Nazi Germany also his fault?
Notice how I said "from Mendel too"? As in "in addition" and not as in "mostly from"? Also the fragment "but to try and put this on someone else is a joke" is interesting. First off, you seem to be assuming there is someone to blame, but it surely ain't Mendel. Second, by asking "is Nazi Germany also his fault?" it should have been dead obvious that I'm not particularly interested in blaming either old Gregor OR Charles. I think it should have been pretty clear that my point there was that Darwin's work wasn't the only contributing factor, and since genetics was a big scientific deal (very big, given Darwin's getting heredity pretty much dead wrong) consistency demands that if Darwin gets the Hitler tarbrush treatment, then so should Mendel. Like I said, personally, I think the idea that either of them should is crap, but at least if people were picking at both their corpses and both their theories, it'd be more consistent crap.dbthomas_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT}

herb @ 207 I add my thanks to tribune7. You've set out the argument here (as I mentioned in 171) very clearly...
P1: If undirected evolution is true, Hitler was not wrong.
tribune at 229 puts it this way
If the ToE is right — man is not a special creation — then what Hitler did was not immoral.
And yet we do not say atheistic evolutionists lining up to praise Hitler. Instead we have them claiming that morality does have evolutionary basis, and also that biology itself should not be the arbiter of morality. So it appears that something is wrong with herb's P1. How any of this aids Intelligent Design, I Do Not Know.olearyfan_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT}

tribune7 @ 205
It’s that Hitler’s acts are damming evidence of the falsity of undirected evolution. You can still believe in directed evolution.
Again, I am here (hopefully) to talk about the positive evidence for Intelligent Design... But it seems to me you are making very strange claims about biology and behaviour here. I'll deal with this in my response to herb.
[Hitler] was rational.
Really? All the time? He wasn't completely and utterly insane sometimes?
Darwin, OTOH, said that “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.”
dbthomas deals with this in 208. You are reading far too much into Darwin's 19th century language. Moreover, why are you treating Darwin as some kind of holy writer? The praise of him may be effusive, but that does not mean that anyone anywhere treats him as anything more than human. Darwin here was making a prediction, not a direction - and he was not predicting what this words would mean today.
And are you really an O’Leary fan?
Of course!olearyfan_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
12:04 AM
12
12
04
AM
PDT}

Lamarck, Before you go, perhaps you can explain what being effeminate has to do with Darwinism?CannuckianYankee_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT}

db, Charles Davenport was a Darwinist. Mendel documented the observation that the inheritance of traits followed laws. Darwin made the philosophical claim that man is just another animal. Without Mendel, Nazism and Stalinism and the eugenics movement -- Mendel's work was not well known when Francis Galton coined the term -- would still have happened. Without Darwin, they wouldn't have happened.tribune7_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT}

tribune7 [214], you’re just restating the same illogical argument David, not understanding the argument doesn't make it illogical. The theory of evolution has nothing to say about morality. What the ToE addresses is the nature of man. If man is not inherently different than a pig, no more a special creation than a pig, then man can be slaughtered like a pig. What Hitler did was immoral. That is an inarguable truth. If the ToE is right -- man is not a special creation -- then what Hitler did was not immoral. Since the immorality of Hitler's actions is an inarguable truth then the ToE -- with regard to man not being a special creation -- is false.tribune7_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT}

Jerry, it's very simple: Mendelian genetics was a further source of justification for eugenicists. Notice I didn't say when Darwin and Mendel were drawn upon, nor did I say eugenics didn't exist prior to Mendel. You're also ignoring an important fact about what Mendelian genetics offered: eugenics could make itself out to be much more "empirical" by using the genetics that grew out of Mendel's work, and especially so in that period where natural selection was seen as an outmoded idea, which was the tail end of the 19th Century and the first couple decades of the 20th Century. I.e, precisely the period in which Mendel's results were re-discovered, and also one in which the popularity of eugenics grew rapidly. There were in fact different, rival schools of eugenics after genetics was founded:
A school of eugenics arose formally from attempts to apply Darwinian principles to humans in the context of biometry, a school that used statistical approaches to biology. Biometry emphasized blending inheritance and continuous traits, in marked contrast to the particulate inheritance of unit traits in Mendelism. Genetics was therefore a scientific challenge to eugenics, which was rooted in biometry. A Mendelian eugenics arose in the United States primarily under the influence of Charles Davenport.
In light of that, it's worth noting that American laws were seen as models for Germany to emulate:
No wonder that Fritz Lenz, a German physician-geneticist advocate of sterilization (later a leading ideologue in the Nazi program of “racial hygiene”), could, in 1923, berate his countrymen for their backwardness in the domain of sterilization as compared with the United States.
Genetics played a very large role in forming actual policy as well (note the description of Lenz above, too):
The predominant medical presence in the Nazi sterilization program was Dr. Ernst Rüdin, a Swiss-born psychiatrist of international renown. Originally a student of Emil Kraepelin, the great classical psychiatrist, Rüdin became a close associate of Alfred Plotz in establishing the German Society for Racial Hygiene. Rüdin was an indefatigable researcher and saw as his mission the application of Mendelian laws and eugenic principles to psychiatry. A former student and associate of his told me that “the aim of his life” was to establish the genetic basis for psychiatric conditions, and that “he was not so much a fanatical Nazi as a fanatical geneticist.” But a Nazi Rüdin did become, joining the Party in 1937 at the age of sixty. From his prestigious position as director of the Research Institute for Psychiatry of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society in Munich, Rüdin worked closely with a regime whose commitment to genetic principles he applauded, and was one of the principle architects of the sterilization laws. He became a significant source of scientific legitimation for the regime’s racial policies (including consultations with Hans F. K. Günther, the leading Nazi anthropologist-publicist on racial matters, whose intellectual repute was generally held to be very low). Rüdin was not involved in the direct medical killing of the “euthanasia” program; but a younger associate to whom I spoke had the impression that his teacher, though not without doubts about the program, could well have favored a version of it with careful medical control.
Basically, I'm saying your ideas about cause and effect with respect to Nazi eugenics are too narrow and simplistic. There was no one single and original cause upon which all blame can be laid. In that vein, I am curious as to your thoughts on this question: did the Spartans rely on Origin of Species when developing their rather eugenics-like practice of examining infants to determine if they were good material for the State? Unlike Darwin, Hitler specifically cited them, a notable example being in the unpublished "Zweites Buch":
At one time the Spartans were capable of such a wise measure, but not our present, mendaciously sentimental, bourgeois patriotic nonsense. The rule of six thousand Spartans over three hundred and fifty thousand Helots was only thinkable in consequence of the high racial value of the Spartans. But this was the result of a systematic race preservation; thus Sparta must be regarded as the first Volkisch State. The exposure of sick, weak, deformed children, in short their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children in consequence of birth control or through abortions, in order subsequently to breed a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses.
Given that, I'd say we should add them to list of "conspirators". Also, if you still think the whole Mendel things is "stupid", give this a shot: search Google using the phrase "mendelian eugenics".dbthomas_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT}

"Jerry, no one is disputing that eugenics drew from Darwin to justify itself. It drew heavily from Mendel too. Is Nazi Germany also his fault?" This is a stupid comment. The whole eugenics movement was in full force before researchers discovered Mendel's work. The eugenicists personally single out Darwin as the basis for their ideas. Mendel said nothing about survival of the fittest, Malthusian competition, emphasis on artificial selection as a way to select the fittest, differences in races or variation within species leading to some of higher quality than others. Do you really think that eugenics movement is due in a large part to Mendel? If not then why bring it up? Such a non sequitur says that you really believe it was Darwin's ideas and all you are doing is trying to throw out some confusion. If you want to deny that eugenicists were primarily influenced by Darwin's writings, go ahead but to try and put this on someone else is a joke. The question is where did Darwin's ideas lead and the answer is obvious in the words of those who ran with them. They thought they were doing noble things. Well so did Hitler. Both were delusional and morally bankrupt. No one is saying Nazi Germany is Darwin's fault. But some of the more unpleasant aspects of it can be directly related to the implications of Darwin's writings. Darwin was big on the grandiose implications of his theories and a lot of people took him at his word. That is why he is celebrated.jerry_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT}

I'm also not aware of Darwin providing support for the idea of perpetuating the Aryan race by way of starting a war and getting millions of adult Aryan males killed, and then resorting to getting a bunch of teenaged (or even younger) Aryan males killed once the supply of adults started to run out. Or providing support for the idea that Aryans even exist in the first place.dbthomas_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

From Hitler
That this is possible may not be denied in a world where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created? - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2

The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 10
Yeah, that really sounds like Hitler believes in Darwinian evolutionhdx_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT}

I've got to leave I don't have time to read the whole comments section, which I usually do before commenting. So maybe this was covered but: The 20th century's killers didn't come up with their programs because of Darwin, but it needs to be asked; why did they and other 20th Century killer cultures always incorporate Darwin into their Ideology? Why is this the most convenient premise for them and the planned parenthooders etc? Why couldn't they have gone forward with as much success and velocity if they'd preached man's spiritual nature instead? I think the answer is because Darwinism says man is degraded. All Darwinism says is "you are small, prey to nature, part of nature, you have no significance". You can argue against me about nature's "splendor" but I won't believe you believe your own words, so no need. The crusades, star chamber etc is a different story because people only died then. They at least retained some reverence for life. And the lies that perpetrated these religious wars are much more easily undone. They don't have science as a cloak, a much more convincing religion. There's more things that make the Commies and the crusades a bad comparison but I'll go into that tomorrow or something if anyone wants to disagree. And the worst part is all the kids are taught that it's already proven. Public schools want to make sure the kid graduates feeling like an animal. I see this on TV, on the radio, everywhere; I can tell when someone thinks they're an animal, it permeates who they are, and the overall effect is hyper-permeating our society right now. It's tangibly effecting our culture. Read a biography on George Washington and see what kind of a man he was, then contrast this with the effeminate or weak minded NPRish men of today, or the effeminate perversion of bravery which is the NFL fan crowd. They wouldn't be such weaklings if they were taught that some things are worth dying for. I think what I'm describing is the bedrock on which everything that's good stands on.lamarck_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

The theory of evolution has nothing to say about morality
its statements like this, and the preceding statements from darwiniacs, this refusal to deal with reality, that is just more evidence darwinism is a religion. facts don't matter, only faith in the infallible hairyone of evolution counts...tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

tribune7 [214], you're just restating the same illogical argument, but it's no more logical now. The theory of evolution has nothing to say about morality. It doesn't say anything about Hitler one way or the other.David Kellogg_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

All of them? Even the Aryans? No, just some human beings.tribune7_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

Jerry @ 218: Jerry, no one is disputing that eugenics drew from Darwin to justify itself. It drew heavily from Mendel too. Is Nazi Germany also his fault?dbthomas_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

Tribune @ 217:
db, savage in that quote means other human beings.
All of them? Even the Aryans? Also, you forgot to show the work: how does that quote cause the Nazis (which is effectively what you're saying by bringing it up yet again)? In what way does it say "You should do this (and especially to European Jews, who are part of what we 19th Century folk consider civilized). Seriously, it'll rock"? Prove that Darwin is prescribing and not describing. Thanks in advance.dbthomas_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

I think people should at least watch the video of Weikart or read his first book before commenting on him. Many of the eugenicists in England and Germany and elsewhere were influenced by Darwin's ideas. They readily admit such. And many of these eugenicists held very extreme attitudes about what to do with those that were considered undesirable. There is a reason that eugenics became very popular after Darwin's work. It influenced how the eugenicists thought. Darwin's son was once the president of the British eugenics society and Darwin's cousin was its founder and the one who invented the term "eugenics."jerry_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

db, savage in that quote means other human beings.tribune7_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

OK, Trib, what does "savage" mean in that quote? Show me how that is, effectively, an order or suggestion to commit genocide. Hitler's opinions on black people are irrelevant, so try again.dbthomas_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

tribune7,
Herb @ 207. Well done!
Thanks! Full credit to you for the original argument, of course! :Dherb_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

David, I'll try and help. What Hitler did was immoral. It is more true that what Hitler did was immoral that it is that the Earth is round and orbits the Sun times 10^150. If undirected evolution were true-- that man is the descendant of less complex life solely via natural processes and hence inherently no different than rats or hyenas or crocodiles -- then what Hitler did was not immoral. Hence undirected evolution is false.tribune7_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

BillB, it should've gone without saying that I meant completely materialistic evolution. I have not "missed" the theistic evolution point, nor have I "missed" the atheists' point you speak of because I've yet to hear a convincing argument for one in the first place. I will accept any sound definition that you can offer, but the point here is not "how did morality arise?", but, "Given the connection of Hitler's behavior to the theory of evolution, does our moral outrage serve to undermine the theory of evolution itself?" I don't see how it does not.Berceuse_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

Herb @ 207. Well done!tribune7_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

<You’d be right, if only “savage races” meant “Jews, That's right! Hitler was cool with black Africans LOL.tribune7_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

olearyfan @204, you have misquoted meBerceuse_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

tribune @ 205:
Darwin, OTOH, said that “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.” Hitler put Darwin’s words into action while Phelps refused to do that with Jesus
You'd be right, if only "savage races" meant "Jews, Gyspies, Slavic peoples, homosexuals, political enemies, POWs, those with congenital disabilities, people whose murder was politically expedient and a means to help secure the support of the military" and the like. "Savage", at the time Darwin wrote, was typically used to refer to societies seen as lacking the essential traits of civilization, such as writing, metal tools, urbanization, agriculture, etc. People did attempt to argue that because such-and-such a group was "uncivilized", that meant they were somehow inherently inferior and therefore incapable of civilizing themselves, but they'd been doing it since before Darwin was even born (or Mendel for that matter). It was quite a convenient rationalization for the ever-popular practice of imperialism. Which BTW, is precisely what Darwin was talking about in that quote. Feel free to repeat it and willfully misconstrue it, though.dbthomas_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply