Be Afraid

_{Barry Arrington

March 9, 2018

Intelligent Design}

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

For nearly 75 years the Holocaust has been used as an example of evil so clear as to be beyond reasonable dispute. It was useful as a counter to arguments for moral nihilism such as we get on these pages so often, because very few people were willing to stand up and say, “I personally don’t agree with Holocausts, but of course that’s just my opinion; I can’t say a contrary opinion is necessarily wrong.”

That is not the case anymore as the following exchange between me and Bob O’H demonstrates:

Bob O’H: But doesn’t [Becky’s Lesson] actually support the materialists’ assertion? The story shows a situation where an act that the reader regards as grossly immoral is shown as being morally acceptable in another society.

Barry: Your second sentence is almost right. It should read: The story shows a situation where an act that the reader ~~regards as~~ KNOWS FOR AN ABSOLUTE CERTAIN FACT IS grossly immoral is shown as being morally acceptable in another society.

Thus, if “morality comes from society” is true, it can lead to a situation in which known immoral acts are moral. The materialist is then on the horns of a dilemma. He must admit that under certain circumstances the Holocaust would be good (note, “good,” not merely “regarded as good”) if everyone in the society believes that to be the case. Or he can admit that since that is patently absurd, the premise “morality comes from society” is false.

Bob: Well, no. If I’m a moral subjectivist and I’m being precise, I can say that I regard certain acts are good, and I can say that societies (or other groups) regard these acts as good, but I don’t have any external objective standard by which to say that they actually are good.

Given the choice between (1) embracing the patently absurd proposition that under any conceivable circumstances the Holocaust could be morally good; and (2) rejecting the moral subjectivism his materialism demands, Bob casually clings to his materialism and embraces the absurdity.

Bob is a teacher. God help his students. God help the rest of us as well, because Bob speaks for many, and that should make you very afraid.

Critical Rationalist is even scarier. At least Bob tries to ground his view that the Holocaust was evil in something, even if that something (subjective preference) in practice turns out to be nothing. CR insists there is absolutely no justification for the proposition “the Holocaust was evil.”

Nietzsche speaks of such:

What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing?

“Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing?” Yes, says CR.

If CR is right, then Camus’ observation that the only interesting question is whether to kill yourself in the face of the patent absurdity of life without meaning has real force.

UPDATE:

Bob O’H doubles down. In comment 1 in the combox, he says it would be “arrogant” for him to say no one could ever see any circumstances under which they would consider this to be good:

Comments

steve_h at 68. He went the word salad route. Prediction confirmed. Does anyone else think Steve writes like stoned college sophomore? I'm right aren't I Steve. You are in college; you were stoned when you wrote that. No shame. It's legal in my state, assuming you're 21.Barry Arrington_{March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

"Evil" and "Genocide" don't mean exactly the same thing. But by my definitions above asking "is genocide always evil?" is like asking is "an intentional attempt to destroy (harm) a people" always "an intentional act causing harm or suffering?" If only there was some way I could explain to you that there is some redundancy in that. In my view, a non-evil genocide is an oxymoron (Hint: This would be a great opportunity for you say that I'm the moron here) And it's still not objective moral truth. My definitions could only be objective if the word "harm" can be defined objectively. Normally you would pull me up on this. Sure, some acts (murder, genocide, torture, rape) are known to be harmful or are harmful by definition, but there are many cases which are not so clearly defined - the ones you don't mention when arguing for objective morality. You are using the clear-cut cases to sneak in as objective all of your own personal opinions, likes and dislikes. BTW, how do you feel about God potentially having the Jews tortured forever in hell after the Nazis had finished with them? I guess it's one of the things you have bravely banned from discussion under your new blog rules.steve_h_{March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

steve_h at 64, Let’s review our discussion:
steve_h: I have no problem saying that the Holocaust would be evil at all times, places etc.
So far so good.
Barry: Then you believe in at least one objective transcendent moral truth. Tell me steve, where did that objective moral truth come from?

Steve_h: It’s not an objective moral truth – it’s pretty much a tautology.
Buzzzz. Steve goes off the rails.
Barry: A tautology is the saying of the same thing twice in different words. “The Holocaust was evil” is not a tautology because “Holocaust” and “evil” don’t mean the same thing.

Steve_h: You are right, they don’t mean the same thing
OK, now that we’ve cleared that little distraction up, let’s get back to the original question: Steve, you said the Holocaust would be evil at all times, places etc. That is exactly the same as saying the Holocaust was objectively evil. Now, here’s the question again: Where did that objective moral truth come from? steve_h will either ignore the question or spew more word salad into the combox. Big surprise. Another A-Mat who is a simpering coward.Barry Arrington_{March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

JaD,
So there are practical “objective” reasons for not lying? What about murder? What about rape? What about child abuse? Racial discrimination? Genocide? Are there practical objective reasons why those thing might be wrong and immoral?
If what you mean by “objective reasons” why they are wrong, you are referring to the fact that they can’t be tolerated in a society if that society wishes to endure, then yes there are practical objective reasons why they are wrong. If by objective you mean some outside authoritatative source of objective morality, there is no evidence for this.Allan Keith_{March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

AK, So there are practical “objective” reasons for not lying? What about murder? What about rape? What about child abuse? Racial discrimination? Genocide? Are there practical objective reasons why those thing might be wrong and immoral?john_a_designer_{March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

You don’t know what the word “tautology” means. You should look big words up before you use them. Here, I will help you with that. A tautology is the saying of the same thing twice in different words.
Evil can be defined as intentional harm or suffering especially caused without mitigating circumstances. Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part. The Holocaust was an deliberate attempt to destroy a people at least in part. Given those definitions I don't see how the Holocaust can be considered as anything but evil - The definititions simply do not allow it. No external standard is required. Take away the harm or the intent then the terms Genocide and Evil no longer apply.
“The Holocaust was evil” is not a tautology because “Holocaust” and “evil” don’t mean the same thing.
You are right, they don't mean the same thing, but the definitions have much in common. If anything, Genocide could just be seen as a subset of Evil. Similarly, broadly speaking, murder is deliberate wrongful killing, as opposed to accidental killing, justifiable killing (to prevent even more killing), etc. If I say someone was murdered, I don't need to say that the murder was wrong, because if it wasn't wrong I wouldn't have described it as murder in the first place. In the end, we are both using different definitions of the word "Evil" and you will denounce me as evil or stupid for not sharing your views. I don't know exactly what your definition of evil is - only that you think it's objective. That some acts meet my criteria and yours does not imply that your definition is therefore the correct one.steve_h_{March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

JAD,
What if someone doesn’t agree that lying is wrong? Does that make it okay for him because he doesn’t believe it’s wrong?
For him, yes. However, is he willing to live with the consequences of his lying (nobody trusting him, possible libel/slander charges, etc.)?
What if 99% of the people in a community believed there was nothing really wrong with lying? Would that make it moral to lie?
It wouldn't really matter. There is no way a society could function if 99% of its population constantly lied.Allan Keith_{March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

CR Hitler’s thinking was not far from Trumps. Pretty dang ignorant if not outright stupid. Where is Trump's WWI that he served in and got injured and was in the hospital when the Armistice was concluded? Where is the intense resentment stoked by the Armistice that Hitler and the populace in general felt was a betrayal of national destiny? Who is the equivalent of Oscar Pescel who invented Lebensraum after reading Origin of the Species Where is the economic depression that allowed Hitler to gain power when the populace gives into desperation? We have the economic opposite right now because of Trump Where is the equivalent of Lebensraum in the American psyche which demands expansion of our territory and genocide as the German population demanded?groovamos_{March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

What if someone doesn’t agree that lying is wrong? Does that make it okay for him because he doesn’t believe it’s wrong? What if 99% of the people in a community believed there was nothing really wrong with lying? Would that make it moral to lie?john_a_designer_{March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

JAD @ 59 -
Your subjective “moral” opinions, Bob, are not morally binding on anyone else.
Oh, I agree.
“Morality” without interpersonal moral obligation is not just impotent it’s meaningless.
Indeed, and that's why the social element is important. The law is one way that moral behaviour is encouraged, but there are others (e.g. your comments about the obligation to truth telling are an example of subtler forms of encouragement).Bob O'H_{March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PDT}

Bob @ #48, Your subjective "moral" opinions, Bob, are not morally binding on anyone else. “Morality” without interpersonal moral obligation is not just impotent it’s meaningless. How can any group or community survive and thrive if its members are not committed to honesty and truth telling. Tonight I was watching a documentary about an Illinois man, Randy Steidl, who was sentenced to death for a double homicide because one of the witnesses at his trial gave false testimony. Steidl spent 17 years on death row before this conviction was overturned. Here is a link to an article about his case. https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/us/death-row-stories-randy-steidl/index.html All mentally competent human being are morally obligated to tell the truth. It can have dire consequences when we don’t. In other words, it’s not based on your subjective moral beliefs and opinions.john_a_designer_{March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

Comment deleted. CR, this really is your last warning. If all you want to talk about is your assumed notions of Barry's views of scripture and how God, if he existed, would be a poopyhead, then you need to move along. If you want to talk about your critical rational approach to ethics, by all means do so. I've even opened a thread hoping you would do just that. Again, we are not going to bog this site down in Old Testament apologetics. critical rationalist_{March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

Prediction: We won't be hearing much from CR anymore. When you take his "gotcha" whataboutism away, all he has left is defending his self-evidently morally monstrous views (i.e., I am open to arguments that murdering 18 million was a good thing).Barry Arrington_{March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

[Deleted as violation of UD Policy] CR if you have an argument to make in response to Barry's, by all means make it. As the new UD policy indicates, UD is a forum for the discussion of science and philosophy, not your "gotcha" theological whataboutism. critical rationalist_{March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

CR:
All preferences start out as conjectures.
What is your preferred answer to the question what is the sum of 2+2? I prefer the answer "4." My preference for that answer is not based on conjecture. It is based on the objective fact that the answer is self-evidently true. What is your preferred answer to the question is the slaughter 18 million men, women and children evil? I prefer the answer "yes." My preference for that answer is not based on conjecture. It is based on the objective fact that the answer is self-evidently true.Barry Arrington_{March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

Nonsense. His position is easy enough to understand. It boils down to “Holocausts are not my cup of tea. But apparently they were Himmler’s cup of tea. And who is to say whether my tea preference is superior to Himmler’s”
All preferences start out as conjectures. If Himmler’s prefernce wasn’t throughly criticized, which it’s offen not in cases like this, then how could we find errors in it? Specifically, our preferences are based on ideas about how the world words, in reality, and we can be mistaken about those idea. In fact, many people in the Reich were of Jewish or Slavic desent. And Hitler himself had DNA markers that were rare in Western Europeans, but common among North Africans - particular the Berber tribes of Morocco, Algeria, Libya and Tunisia. It is also one of the major founding lineages of the Jewish population, present in 18 - 20% of Ashkenazi Jews and 7-30% of Sephardic Jews. So, it’s possible that Hitler was related to the people he despised. Based on what we know now, the human race is more driven by memes than genes. And that will only further continue to be the case in the future. Knowing how is a great equalizer. So, it seems to me that Hitler himself was quite mistaken across a wide range of moral knowledge. Hitler’s thinking was not far from Trumps. Make Germany great again, as opposed to make America great again.critical rationalist_{March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

Dear readers, you be the judge. CR just admitted that he cannot be certain the Holocaust was evil and that he is open to being persuaded that it was in fact morally upright and just. He does not, however, want to dwell on the staggering implications of his morally odious views about 18 million dead bodies 75 years ago. Instead, he is desperate to change the subject. "Let's talk about Canaan 3,400 years ago, not Europe within living memory," summarizes his comment. Instead of dwelling on the fact that he just said it is conceivable that he could come around to the view that it was OK to murder 18 million men, women and children, he says what about those witches? I am not going to rise to his bait. I do not need to defend God; he can take care of himself.
Barry: If I accept for the sake of argument that you are correct, that the Canaanite and Holocaust episodes are examples of the same sort of thing, that does not refute the point I made in the Becky’s Lesson story. CR: Is this not questioning whether the Canaanite slaughter was evil?
CR, you say lots of odious and morally indefensible things, but you are rarely downright stupid, as you are here. Read what I said again, this time for comprehension. I accept for the sake of argument that you are correct. I have cut off your attempt to change the subject away from your morally monstrous views. Again, God can defend himself. He does not need me to do so.Barry Arrington_{March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Bob, Immoral by whose standards? I'll grant that you haven't been clear but as far as I can tell by your standards i.e. morality is determined by society.tribune7_{March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Translation: CR tentatively holds to the notion that the Holocaust was evil, but he is open to being persuaded he is wrong. Horrifying. God help us.
Yes, Barry. I don’t suspect I will actually be persuaded, but that’s an accurate statement. Why? Because it goes both ways. Are you open to being persuaded that Yahweh’s command to kill Canaanite women and children on the land he “gave” them evil? If your not, merely because it came from a source you deem authorative, that’s what’s horrifying. However, you probably believe that God has stopped making personal appearances, so I don’t have to worry about you thinking God will command you to kill me (thanks goodness). But what about witches and homosexuals?
“You shall not permit a sorceress to live. Exodus 22:18
Are you just fortunate in that there are no true witches around anymore, so you don’t have to kill them? Or where any of the women killed 3,000 years actually witches? What about all the witches being killled in Africa? Is that evil?
If I accept for the sake of argument that you are correct, that the Canaanite and Holocaust episodes are examples of the same sort of thing, that does not refute the point I made in the Becky’s Lesson story.
Is this not questioning whether the Canaanite slaughter was evil?critical rationalist_{March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

Bob @ 49: The a/mats do have moral standards. Some think murder is perfectly moral. Some think murder is perfectly immoral. It's all just each person's opinion. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." Aleister Crowley.Truth Will Set You Free_{March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

t7 @ 46 -
If morals are based on social consensus would those who advocate change to the consensus be immoral?
Immoral by whose standards?Bob O'H_{March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

JAD @ 45 -
Now you can see how Hitler and the Nazis came to power.
Yes, the people opposed to them were too busy arguing amongst themselves. Barry and I both agree that the Holocaust was wrong, and yet that's not good enough. If I don't believe it was wrong in the same way that he does, I get vitriolic attacks from him.Bob O'H_{March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

Bob says I don’t get his position. Nonsense. His position is easy enough to understand. It boils down to “Holocausts are not my cup of tea. But apparently they were Himmler’s cup of tea. And who is to say whether my tea preference is superior to Himmler’s”
I'm sorry to say, but you haven't understood my position. We can all say whether my views on the holocaust are superior to Himmler's (welcome to democracy!). My point is that I can't say what the views of people 3000 years (say) in the future will be.Bob O'H_{March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

Bob, If morals are based on social consensus would those who advocate change to the consensus be immoral? Once racism was the social consensus of the West. Were those that condemned the consensus in the wrong? What gave them moral authority?tribune7_{March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

Now you can see how Hitler and the Nazis came to power. People forget that they didn’t seize power through force, though they had tried that earlier-- the so-called Beer Hall Putsch. Hitler and the Nazis were voted democratically into power, then they seized absolute power. All they needed were morally indifferent people who were content to just bob along with the meandering currents and eddies of a relativistic society.john_a_designer_{March 10, 2018
March
03
Mar
10
10
2018
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

How is arguing with a materialist like housebreaking a puppy? Materialist arguments, like those CR and Bob have made in this very thread, are the rhetorical equivalent of piles of steaming dog poo. And they drop those piles all over the place. Dealing with it is very unpleasant. But if you are going to make any progress, it is necessary to rub their noses in it. And as Bob especially demonstrates, they don't like that. People like Bob living their comfortable little bourgeois lives, coasting on Christian moral capital built up over centuries, dabble in philosophy and make half-educated pronouncements about ethics. And they come up with gems like "it would be arrogant for me to say Himmler was necessarily wrong." And a part of that moral capital is flushed down the toilet. How much longer before they undermine it altogether and the whole edifice comes tumbling down? I don't know. But I'm no optimistic. Thus the title of this post.Barry Arrington_{March 10, 2018
March
03
Mar
10
10
2018
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

Origenes at 42. God is indeed watching: I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its 'uncertain' 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe: Verses and video
Hebrews 4:13 "And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to Whom we must give account." Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works. Psalm 139:7-14 Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,” even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you. For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. Humanity - Chemical Scum or Made in the Image of God? - video https://youtu.be/ElBWAwjPzyM
bornagain77_{March 10, 2018
March
03
Mar
10
10
2018
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

In the early days of the German advance into Eastern Europe, before the possibility of Soviet retribution even entered their untroubled imagination, Nazi extermination squads would sweep into villages, and after forcing villagers to dig their own graves, murder their victims with machine guns. On one such occasion somewhere in Eastern Europe, an SS officer watched languidly, his machine gun cradled, as an elderly and bearded Hasidic Jew laboriously dug what he knew to be his grave. Standing up straight, he addressed his executioner. “God is watching what you are doing,” he said. And then he was shot dead. What Hitler did not believe and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what the SS did not believe and what the Gestapo did not believe and what the NKVD did not believe and what the commissars, functionaries, swaggering executioners, Nazi doctors, Communist Party theoreticians, intellectuals, Brown Shirts, Black Shirts, gauleiters, and a thousand party hacks did not believe was that God was watching what they were doing.
[Berlinski]Origenes_{March 10, 2018
March
03
Mar
10
10
2018
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

Bob says I don't get his position. Nonsense. His position is easy enough to understand. It boils down to "Holocausts are not my cup of tea. But apparently they were Himmler's cup of tea. And who is to say whether my tea preference is superior to Himmler's" God help us.Barry Arrington_{March 10, 2018
March
03
Mar
10
10
2018
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

@Bob O'H, you are equivocating between why you come to believe a thing with why that thing is true. I have come to believe sqrt(2)=1.414 because of teaching I received in society. But, I don't believe its truth is derived from society. I could have been raised in a Pythagorean commune and held the belief that sqrt(2)=1.414 was blasphemy punishable by death. However, the Pythagorean belief is false. It can sometimes be difficult to get past cultural teachings, but that does not mean all beliefs are culturally relative. This is especially clear in the case of math. So, it is fallacious to think just because society has taught you a certain moral view that said view is only culturally relative. It may well be objectively true. It is arrogant to claim otherwise. In fact, this is why many Nazis came to realize their error, even in the concentration camps, and assist the Jews. If their moral view was entirely relative, then they could not have come to this realization.EricMH_{March 10, 2018
March
03
Mar
10
10
2018
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply