Darwin at Columbine Redux

_{Barry Arrington

October 8, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Editor’s note: I post frequently on the ethical implications of materialism. There is a reason for that. I have dealt personally with the deadly consequences of the materialist worldview taken to its logical end . Below is a post that first appeared on these pages on November 9, 2007:

In a recent post Denyse O’Leary linked to a news story coverning Pekka Eric Auvinen, the Finnish student who killed eight in a shooting spree at his school. Apparently Auvinen was an ardent Darwinist who considered himself to be an instrument of natural selection. He wrote: “I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgaces of human race and failures of natural selection.”

One of O’Leary’s interlocutors more or less accused her of cherry picking her data to push her personal religious agenda. Apparently this person believes this case is an aberation, and it is unfair to suggest a connection between Darwin’s theory and a school shooter’s self understanding as an instrument of natural selection. Not so.

As the attorney for the families of six of the students killed at Columbine, I read through every single page of Eric Harris’ jounals; I listened to all of the audio tapes and watched the videotapes, including the infamous “basement tapes.” There cannot be the slightest doubt that Harris was a worshiper of Darwin and saw himself as acting on Darwinian principles. For example, he wrote: “YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE??? Natural SELECTION! It’s the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms . . . but it’s all natural! YES!”

Elsewhere he wrote: “NATURAL SELECTION. Kill the retards.” I could multiply examples, but you get the picture.

It was no coincidence that on the day of the shootings Harris wore a shirt with two words written on it: “Natural Selection.”

I am not suggesting that Auvinen’s and Harris’ actions are the inevitable consequences of believing in Darwinism. It is, however, clear that at least some of Darwin’s followers understand “survival of the fittest” and the attendant amorality at the bottom of Darwinism as a license to kill those whom they consider “inferior.” Nothing could be more obvious.

Comments

Compliments of Judge DeWeese (http://bit.ly/xMYQy) and the "humanist ethics" I. The universe is self-existent and not created. Man is a product of cosmic accidents, and there is nothing higher than man. (Humanist Manifesto I) II. Ethics depend on the person and the situation. Ethics need no religious or ideological justification. (Humanist Manifesto I) III. There is no absolute truth. What's true for you may not be true for me. (Humanist John Dewey) IV. The meaning of law evolves. "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." (Us. Sup. Ct. Chief Justice Chas. Hughes) V. "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life." (Planned Parenthood vs. Casey) VI. Pesonal autonomy is a higher good than responsibility to your neighbor or obedience to fixed moral duties. (Humanist Manifesto II) VII. Quality-of-life decisions justify assisting the death of a fetus, defective infant, profoundly disabled or terminally ill person. (Princeton U. Prof. Perter Singer)absolutist_{October 8, 2009
October
10
Oct
8
08
2009
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

It is, however, clear that at least some of Darwin’s followers understand “survival of the fittest” and the attendant amorality at the bottom of Darwinism as a license to kill those whom they consider “inferior.” Nothing could be more obvious.
For the record: the concept of "survival of the fittest" was not invented by Darwin; Herbert Spencer is the one to blame.Cabal_{October 8, 2009
October
10
Oct
8
08
2009
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

Sotto Voce, in your comment at [3] you commit two logical fallacies at once: “false dilemma” and “straw man.” You ask which of these positions I hold: 1. You can’t derive an “ought” from an “is”, so materialists have no resources with which to make moral judgments. Materialism is incompatible with the existence of any ethical code. 2. Materialism (more specifically, Darwinism) does entail a specific ethical code, one that advocates the elimination of the weak. Then you state: “It should be obvious that these are incompatible positions.” Well, certainly your first option is incompatible with your second option. But your second option does not, as you imply, exhaust the possibilities. You have set up a false dilemma. No one I know of holds the second view. It is a straw man of your own creation. Here are the actual facts. Option 1 is true. One cannot derive an “ought” from an “is.” That is obvious. The killers to whom I have alluded do not, however, hold the view expressed in option 2. Instead, they hold a very different view: “Materialism (more specifically, Darwinism) entails that there is NO ethical code. Therefore, there is no reason not to kill people whom I consider inferior if to do so gives me satisfaction for whatever reason.” If you deny the conclusions of the post there is no point in arguing with you. For you deny that which is undeniable and are therefore quite literally hopeless.Barry Arrington_{October 8, 2009
October
10
Oct
8
08
2009
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

Denyse, In response to your question, I don't think Darwinism contributes to an explanation of why the murders were wrong. Neither does it contribute to an explanation of why the murders were right. This is not particularly surprising or shocking, since it's a feature shared by every single scientific theory. The theory of relativity has nothing to contribute to such an explanation either. And frankly, Harris's "NATURAL SELECTION. Kill the retards." is about as much of a non-sequitur as "E = mc^2. Kill the retards."Sotto Voce_{October 8, 2009
October
10
Oct
8
08
2009
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

If the answer is nothing, I can’t see what it would contribute to the peace of civil society?
Why should it contribute anything? Darwin put forward a scientific theory, not a moral or political one.Heinrich_{October 8, 2009
October
10
Oct
8
08
2009
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

Barry, I have a question. Which of the following do you believe? 1. You can't derive an "ought" from an "is", so materialists have no resources with which to make moral judgments. Materialism is incompatible with the existence of any ethical code. 2. Materialism (more specifically, Darwinism) does entail a specific ethical code, one that advocates the elimination of the weak. It should be obvious that these are incompatible positions.Sotto Voce_{October 8, 2009
October
10
Oct
8
08
2009
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Darwinism gave some young people the idea that they were so superior to others that it was okay to shoot them - in settled societies with law codes. That needs to be considered. English Common Law - the law of the English-speaking peoples, love it or hate it - is no respecter of persons in these matters. All murdered persons are equal. You cannot get away with murdering a person by pointing out that she was 85 years old anyway, or was really sick, or had Down syndrome, or was just a crack ho somewhere. At least, I would not recommend trying such a defense in a Toronto courtroom. But maybe we have yet to be enlightened? My big question - Barry and others have raised it - is what would Darwinism ever contribute to an explanation of why these murders are wrong? If the answer is nothing, I can't see what it would contribute to the peace of civil society?O'Leary_{October 8, 2009
October
10
Oct
8
08
2009
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

Thanks for this post. While the actions of these young men are not the inevitable consequences of believing Darwinism, the conclusions they came to are. The difference is that they decided, as did the the Nazis, to put Darwin's ideas, taken to their natural logical conclusions, into actions. Actions that Darwin himself would have found appalling. But, only because there remained in him much of the borrowed Judeo/Christian values still held by most of the world around him. Like Peter Singer and many other Darwinists, they simply took Darwin's ideas to their logical conclusions. Unfortunately, contrary to most Darwinists, these young men also chose to be part of the fulfillment of Darwin's prediction of the elimination of "inferior" races by the "superior" one(s) - they, wrongly seeing themselves as the latter. Darwinian logic is ill. However, no amount of sophistry can remove the underlying implications of his theory. No wonder Hoyle said they were "in a sense mentally ill".Borne_{October 8, 2009
October
10
Oct
8
08
2009
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply