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

@111 He is not quoting the Bible he clearly states Adam is the ancestor of all white men. See page 118 of the link.hdx_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

why talk about it all?? unless its a direct result of his theory?? hmmm?
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:
but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind
In other words 'it is wrong to apply selective breeding to humans'. Please, its rather obvious isn’t it??
the extent to which darwiniacs will defend their hairygod is just another indication that evolution is a religion.
A more generalised form of your statement would be "Your refusal to accept my claims are proof that I'm right"BillB_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

If you will forgive me for my opinion, I true believe that all this “darwnism leads to nazism” is doing the ID movement no favors.
the scholars who studied hitler, were often evolutionists like Sir Arthur Keith...
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Reference Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947.
tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

He acknowledges Adam as the common ancestor for white men and that his view is based on scripture. You may quibble about the term creationist but he does appear to believe in the biblical account of creation, at least as far as Adam goes
but of course the bible doesn't say that Adam was the 'common ancestor of white men' now does it?tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

He says we must acknowledge Adam as the father of the ancestor race Wow what more can I do? You know just because wikipedia or Encarta leaves something out, doesn’t mean it isn’t a fact.
wow, you totally ignore what creationism means in order to further your agenda. I have no doubts that Voltaire quoted the bible, does that make him a religious fundamentalist???tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

Folks: I think a few facts from Darwin, H G Wells and herr Schicklegruber himself will make a difference. Please do not force me to quote Ch XI of Mein Kampf. The roots in Darwin's Descent of Man, are as plain as can be. GEM of TKI PS: The above cite fr ch 6 of Descent on extinction of inferior races appears without alteration in the 2nd edn 1874, i.e all those nice words on Negroes in that 1873 letter made no difference to Darwin's scientific work. the moral hazard is plain and it is undeniable that he did nothing about it in the place where he should have. At least H G Wells warned.kairosfocus_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

ou still haven’t shown where Darwin proclaims, in direct contrast to some other statements, that extermination is a good thing.
why talk about it all?? unless its a direct result of his theory?? hmmm? the extent to which darwiniacs will defend their hairygod is just another indication that evolution is a religion.tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

tribune7 @ 79
If you think Christianity causes evil you should reject it
I can't believe that you would really tell someone to reject Christianity without properly trying to understand it. You must be joking with me. You ignored what I said about the Spanish Inquisition. My point is that just because people commit evil acts in the name of Christianity, this does not invalidate Christianity. As you yourself say, evil (and by implication racism, genocide, anti-semitism and all that go with them) existed long before Christ and Darwin. Certainly, monsters have used Darwinism to justify evil - just as they have used Christianity, Islam and (for all their lovely-doveyness) Buddhism. If you will forgive me for my opinion, I true believe that all this "darwnism leads to nazism" is doing the ID movement no favors. "Appeals to consequences" are a very basic logical fallacy, as discussed in this conservapedia article. I came to Uncommon Descent for positive, scientific evidence for Intelligent Design, such as that discussed in The Spiritual Brain. I really hope this forum isn't just about he-said she-said mud-slinging.olearyfan_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

OMG @103 read the book that i gave a link for. it has the quote i mentioned in #2. He says we must acknowledge Adam as the father of the ancestor race Wow what more can I do? You know just because wikipedia or Encarta leaves something out, doesn't mean it isn't a fact.hdx_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

you said he was a creationist…nothing in your quote supports that.
I tend to agree about that specific post but then there was this quote from Gobineau at the start of the thread:
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
He acknowledges Adam as the common ancestor for white men and that his view is based on scripture. You may quibble about the term creationist but he does appear to believe in the biblical account of creation, at least as far as Adam goes.BillB_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

I am just summarizing my thoughts and I am out of here 1) People before Darwin were racists 2) Even creationist using the Bible to justify beliefs were racists 3) Darwin's writing were some of the least racist at the time 4) Darwin felt there was little biological difference between the races 5) Darwin believed the European civilization was superior, to others but 6) Civilizations come and go and have more to do with knowledge morals religion than biology 7) Darwin felt that weaker members breeding would have some bad effects 8) But it would be worse to check our morals and not allow all people to breed freely 9) Others after Darwin used evolution to justify racism 10) Others after Darwin who were not evolutionist were racist 11) Hitler based some of his views from people who were evolutionists but many of his views came from creationist (Gobineau, Luther) 12) Hitler and eugenics have nothing to do with natural selection and common descent, but more with artificial selection, something that has been practised for 1000s of years. In conclusion Darwinism is not the cause of all the ills of society. Just because a theory is misused by people does not mean that it is wrong or shouldn't be taught. If that is the case we should not let the Bible be taught.hdx_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

yeah just ignore all that stuff about EXTERMINATING the ‘inferior’ races…and again who was darwin talking about being INFERIOR???
You still haven't shown where Darwin proclaims, in direct contrast to some other statements, that extermination is a good thing.BillB_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

#102...you said he was a creationist...nothing in your quote supports that.tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

@96 tsmith Took only a couple minutes to find this. Look at page 118 http://books.google.com/books?id=JeM_1BCeffAC&printsec=titlepage& (yes google is easy to use) Ooh here is what Encarta says about him
Joseph Arthur de Gobineau (1816-1882), French diplomat and social philosopher, whose racial theory, pervaded by anti-Semitism, later became a philosophical justification for Nazi racism. Gobineau was born in Ville-d'Avray, near Paris, France, to an aristocratic family. From 1848 to 1877 he held diplomatic posts in Iran, Germany, Greece, Brazil, and Sweden. In addition to his diplomatic roles, Gobineau was an avid writer. He wrote novels, and books on religion, philosophy, and history. Gobineau's most famous work, Essay on the Inequality of Human Races (1853-1855), stated that the Aryan, or white, race was superior to all other races. His theory of racial superiority later influenced the German composer Richard Wagner and Wagner's son-in-law Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and was eventually adopted by the German dictator Adolf Hitler. Gobineau's theory of racial superiority has been thoroughly refuted and is considered worthless by modern anthropologists. Gobineau's other books include The Renaissance (1877; translated in 1913), a study of the psychological motives behind the Italian Renaissance.
hdx_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Selectively quoting to misrepresent like this when the full quote appears on the SAME PAGE just doesn’t work. Why would a eugenicist say that eugenics was bad?
yeah Darwin was for taking care of the weak...but not allowing the inferior to breed...what would you call that?? oh yeah eugenics...tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

#98 yeah just ignore all that stuff about EXTERMINATING the 'inferior' races...and again who was darwin talking about being INFERIOR??? Gould, and a host of other disagree with you, but what did they know?tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

No he doesn’t, none of his claims are a product of or form a part of the theory, they are his personal beliefs about its consequences, which he is entitled to. There is a BIG difference between interpreting scientific theories to support your beliefs and what those theories actually are. I suspect though that you are disinclined to acknowledge differences like this when it suits you
you'll notice he said that at DARWIN DAY...a religious holiday for atheists...and here is MILLER...that patron saint of 'theistic evolutionists' in a TEXTBOOK...
"Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless--a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us." (Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; emphasis in original)
no divine plan to guide us?? philosophical materialism??? isn't that atheism??tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

@93 wow again fail. Darwin said we shouldn't do anything to prevent breeding and this is quite clear. This is clearly not eugenics. Since you can't comprehend what Darwin is talking about let me try to explain in simple terms. I have a neuromuscular disease. I can function decently well but I can't run and I often trip. Some of genes are obviously inferior to others. If I didn't live in a highly civilized society and had to hunt for food, I would probably die. Now in this society I can pass on my genes to offspring. A eugencist would say that someone like me that has bad genes and should be prohibited from passing them on. Darwin says this would be bad biologically, but to prevent someone from breeding would be morally wrong. He clearly states that natural selection should run its course and laws shouldn't get in the way.hdx_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

#92 again, thanks for proving my point.. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; that is EXACTLY what a eugenicist would say…
What, this: but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Selectively quoting to misrepresent like this when the full quote appears on the SAME PAGE just doesn't work. Why would a eugenicist say that eugenics was bad?BillB_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

OMG a historian said so, it must make it true.
as opposed to YOU said it, so it must be true??? right. Arthur de Gobineau...I looked him up in wikpedia, they didn't mention him being a creationist...so where do you get this at??? obviously racism and anti-semitism have always existed...darwin gave them a 'scientific' respectability...as Gould admitted...but what did he know, compared to you?tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

tsmith-90
hate to tell you, but provine speaks for evolution in a way you do not.
No he doesn't, none of his claims are a product of or form a part of the theory, they are his personal beliefs about its consequences, which he is entitled to. There is a BIG difference between interpreting scientific theories to support your beliefs and what those theories actually are. I suspect though that you are disinclined to acknowledge differences like this when it suits you.BillB_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

@91 tsmith OMG a historian said so, it must make it true. Aryan master race from Gobineau. He was clearly a creationist.
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
Yes the Bible says all humans came from Adam and eve, that is why a number of creationist believed non-whites were a separate race. Also antisemitism was also there long before Darwin. Just read the works of the creationist Martin Luther, which greatly influence Nazi propaganda.hdx_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

#92 again, thanks for proving my point..
We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind;
that is EXACTLY what a eugenicist would say...why do you think there were so many people sterilized in the US as a result of eugenics??? so the 'weak' and 'useless eaters' would not breed. oh yeah you forgot the preceding sentences....
On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted
who are these INFERIOR MEMBERS???tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

@86 wow your failure at reading comprehension is amazing nowhere in 80 does Darwin give approval but he does say
but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind;
This is completely opposite of what a eugenicist would say! And again darwin states that
Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring.
He clearly states that no law should prevent people from breeding! Completely opposite of a eugencist.hdx_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

By the way no one ever commented on the fact that the master Aryan race notion came from a creationist who used the Bible to justify some of his ideas.
obviously it didn't, and you saying it did doesn't make it so. creationism says humans came from adam and eve...we're all ONE RACE...all related...and Hitler, as his historians acknowledge, got his ideas from darwinism.tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

ScotAndrews (74), "If morality is a product of evolution then it is a convenience to be employed when it suits us." A bit of a loaded question, which as is always the case depends on what you mean by "morality". Is it wrong to kill? If so, were the Crusaders acting immorally? "It is not binding." What do you mean by "binding"? Who or what does the binding, even if there is a morality? Surely not the God that stood by and watched as the genocide unfolded? "Our rejection of it is just as valid as our acceptance of it. Only history can judge whether genocide is selected or rejected as beneficial for the species, not morality." Not at all. I think the vast majority of humanity today would regard genocide as totally prejudicial for the well-being of the species. Most people I know despair at scenes of genocide (especially as we never seem to learn and the same sorts of acts get repeated). On the other hand, those who believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing God would surely need to conclude that genocide was part of God's overall plans (otherwise, why let it happen?) and thus a moral good. Not my view at all. "We can still judge Hitler, but based on what? Our emotions? What make ours more valid than his?" The fact that humanity can generally get along and progress much better with our views. Following Hitler's led only to general devastation. Basically, our way works, his doesn't.Gaz_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

I’ll take you at your word then but I find your support for racism and eugenics abhorrent for, as you seem to believe, the fact that you have stated these things about evolution must therefore mean you support them
more darwinian 'logic' lying for darwin, its what evolutionists do.
And? He is entitled to his opinion, and I disagree with it. What has his personal views on the existence of God got to do with the theory of evolution
hate to tell you, but provine speaks for evolution in a way you do not. are you published? are you one of the leading darwinists in the world today? all I can is its rather obvious the truth hurts...your saint charlie was a racist eugenicist.
tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

Challenge to everyone. Can anyone give a quote from a creationist scientist around Darwin's time that states that all the races have similar mental abilities. For example Darwin stated.
There is good evidence that the art of shooting with bows and arrows has not been handed down from any common progenitor of mankind, yet as Westropp and Nilsson have remarked, the stone arrow-heads, brought from the most distant parts of the world, and manufactured at the most remote periods, are almost identical; and this fact can only be accounted for by the various races having similar inventive or mental powers
hdx_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

tsmith-77 I'll take you at your word then but I find your support for racism and eugenics abhorrent for, as you seem to believe, the fact that you have stated these things about evolution must therefore mean you support them?
and hate to tell you, but evolution IS a religious theory…as provine admits…
And? He is entitled to his opinion, and I disagree with it. What has his personal views on the existence of God got to do with the theory of evolution - almost nothing, its just his opinion. Try asking Ken Miller for his opinion. As for reading things into text:
darwinists never do.
What you mean is 'there is only one valid interpretation of anything - MINE'
to them darwin was the most sainted, wonderful person who ever lived!!
You have a vivid but inaccurate imagination.
Please its rather obvious isn’t it??
It is a stretch of Olympian proportions.BillB_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

By the way no one ever commented on the fact that the master Aryan race notion came from a creationist who used the Bible to justify some of his ideas. So does this mean we should stop teaching the Bible?hdx_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply