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

you ’sir’ are a liar. I have amply backed up what I said with quotes from darwin, and his followers.
Based on my observations so far, if you were not an ID supporter then I suspect that accusing an ID supporter of lying would get you put in moderation. I hope you appreciate the privileged position you have.
ideas have consequences.
Lott and his daughters...BillB_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

quote mining from darwin and ignoring the conclusions from the quotes
oh yeah 'quote mining' which means 'inconvenient truth' too funny...you darwiniacs all post talking points...try some independent thinking..but you wouldn't be darwiniacs if you could do that...tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

This selective quote is not representative as it delibertaly misses out on the wider context of what he is discussing, as I have already illustrated.
oh of course *my* quote is 'selective' while yours is not!! and you ignore what you cannot deal with. and of course Gould, and all those other people were mistaken about Darwin...and his cousin Galton was mistaken too...and his kids...and you can give me all the quotes where Darwin rebukes Galton for euginics, right???tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

@138 fixed
you ’sir’ are a liar. I have amply backed up what I said with quote mining from darwin and ignoring the conclusions from the quotes.
hdx_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

BillB, why don’t you comment on what you think this means…
I've already expressed my opinions on what Darwin was trying to get across. This selective quote is not representative as it delibertaly misses out on the wider context of what he is discussing, as I have already illustrated. Perhaps I should take a leaf out of your book and start selectively referencing the story of Lott and his daughters in order to claim that the Bible advocates drunken incestuous orgies?BillB_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

It appears that you select the portions of a text which re-enforce your prejudices, and ignore anything which contradicts them
couldn't have anything to do with sanger being the most prominent american eugenicist...and her offspring planned parenthood still being around today..and still accepting donations from people trying to get rid of black people....sigh...tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

I fail to see how bearing false witness and casting motes is “truth”.
you 'sir' are a liar. I have amply backed up what I said with quotes from darwin, and his followers. TRUTH hurts.tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

Intelligent Design, like evolution and all science, stands or falls on it’s own merits… Not on appeals to consequence or tu quoques.
evolution is an all-encompassing theory, and it tries to explain all human behavior...as a religion would...the racism, the eugenics, are direct results of the theory...the word 'eugenics' was coined by galton, Darwin's cousin. ideas have consequences.tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

tsmith
interesting that your article doesn’t mention margaret sanger, and planned parenthood…
It appears that you select the portions of a text which re-enforce your prejudices, and ignore anything which contradicts them. The article I linked (not "my article") gives ample credit to those Evangelicals (and others) who opposed the evils of the Eugenics movement.
I think the truth will further that cause, don’t you??
I fail to see how bearing false witness and casting motes is "truth". Intelligent Design, like evolution and all science, stands or falls on it's own merits... Not on appeals to consequence or tu quoques.olearyfan_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

I’m sure people like Newton believed in creation..but I would not call him a creationist…because creationism is a relatively recent movement.
Maybe because universal common descent wasn't an issue before Darwin's time. Perhaps?hdx_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man why is this injurious to the 'race of man'??? darwin sure was interested in 'race' now wasn't he??tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

BillB, why don't you comment on what you think this means...
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.205-206
tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

There are such things as Muslim creationists as well
very true...but I don't think they believe God only created white people...tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

I guess you must have missed that bit.
so darwin thought helping an weaker individual was OK, but it wasn't OK to let them breed.tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

Gobineau mentions Adam and Eve, how is this not referencing the Bible and biblical creation?hdx_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

The Eugenics movement had strong support in the Bible-believing Fundamentalist Southern States of the USA
interesting that your article doesn't mention margaret sanger, and planned parenthood...
This is a letter to Clarence Gamble, from Margaret Sanger, in which she wrote, "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Lenin had a word for these kinds of people...useful idiots... from your article...
An excommunicated Seventh-Day Adventist, Kellogg used his magazine Good Health to reach a wide audience, and the guest list of his Battle Creek Sanitarium reads like a Who’s Who of American elites of the early twentieth century. Kellogg was convinced that poor dietary and moral habits were leading America down the path of "race degeneration." His solution was eugenics, not merely as a set of policies, but as a quasi-religious ideology.11
excommunicated huh?? yeah he sounds like a rabid christian fundamentalist!!
I really fail to see how your arguments do anything to further the cause of intelligent design
I think the truth will further that cause, don't you??tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

its not a view that white people were created by God…and apparently the rest were not…
You just quoted this:
a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis
There are such things as Muslim creationists as well.BillB_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

tsmith-119 you just quoted a passage where Darwin starts to explain why selective breeding in humans is bad in order to support your claim that he was into eugenics. How about adding the following to your quote:
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
I guess you must have missed that bit.BillB_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

tsmith wrote: "this notion of a ’struggle’ sure did pervade his writing apparently…hmmm where else have I heard of this struggle…my struggle….." ....and now I think there's absolutely no point reading your posts any more. You are clearly here just to throw mud at Darwin, even to the point of mentioning that he used the term "struggle" in the long title of "Origins" and Hitler later (60 years later) used the German word in the title of his book, and somehow trying to make it significant. That is pathetic.Gaz_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

tsmith The Eugenics movement had strong support in the Bible-believing Fundamentalist Southern States of the USA. I really fail to see how your arguments do anything to further the cause of intelligent design.olearyfan_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

and that definition is from link sorry.tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

Main Entry:cre·a·tion·ism Pronunciation:\-sh?-?ni-z?m\ Function:noun Date:1880 : a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution 4b its not a view that white people were created by God...and apparently the rest were not...tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

He is interpreting scripture. Are you claiming that you are only a creationist if you DON’T interpret scripture?
the allegation has been made that he was a creationist...creationists believe very specific things...not included with them are the stormfront people for example. I'm sure people like Newton believed in creation..but I would not call him a creationist...because creationism is a relatively recent movement.tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

@117 Your brand of creationism is based on your interpretation of the bible. Since there are so many inconsistencies in Genesis it is easy to come up with your own interpretation. Gobineau believed God created humans in their current form, that is creationism.hdx_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

ok so its not creationism then…since creationism is based upon the bible…
Umm
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.
He is interpreting scripture. Are you claiming that you are only a creationist if you DON'T interpret scripture?BillB_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

Darwin's cousin galton started the eugenics movement, and his children were very active in it...and yet darwin did nothing to dissuade them....tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

Because he was aware of how people like you are happy to distort and abuse science to suit their own ends and he wanted to make his opinions on the subject of eugenics clear, e.g
his views were very clear to people like Huxley...and darwin did NOTHING to stop it.
In other words ‘it is wrong to apply selective breeding to humans’. Please, its rather obvious isn’t it??
not at all...
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.205-206)
tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

but of course the bible doesn’t say that Adam was the ‘common ancestor of white men’ now does it?
No, it doesn't which is why Arthur de Gobineau's interpretation of scripture was wrong - I think you may have been missing the point here.BillB_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

He is not quoting the Bible he clearly states Adam is the ancestor of all white men. See page 118 of the link.
ok so its not creationism then...since creationism is based upon the bible...tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

and lets not forget the entire title of Darwin's book... On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life this notion of a 'struggle' sure did pervade his writing apparently...hmmm where else have I heard of this struggle...my struggle.....tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply