Question #1
1. On what grounds can an atheist condemn Hitler?
posted by Fenian Fox at 9:06 PM
I hope my questions cause you discomfort. You don't learn anything by staying where you are comfortable. But ask yourself, if you don't like the question, do you have a good answer? I look forward to your comments and your question suggestions.
10 Comments:
How far would Hitler have gotten without a predominately god-believing nation backing him up?
Are you asserting that religion enabled the holocaust? That is an intersting idea. I think i just found my next question.
On rational humanist grounds.
I am interested in a compelling description of rational humanism, specifically in the reduction of a condemnation of Hitler to what you would consider the fundamental grounds of rational humanism. I have never heard such an argument.
On what basis does a "Humanist abscribe value to every human life"? Is this just a matter of choice such that I could be a vegetablist and ascribe value to every vegetable? Would I be wrong to be a vegetablist and seek to eliminate humanity for ruthlessly breeding vegetables for consumption?
Simple, "based on our ability to determine what is right using the qualities innate to humanity, particularly rationality." See the Wikipedia definition for Secular Humanism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
I don't think that you have answered the vegetable dilemma.
Words like "Simple" do not begin to describe any philosophical framework and are best left out of any form of rational discussion thereunto relating, lest you look like a fool when you are left without a compelling response to a difficult question. As to Humanism, nykrindc is making an appeal to rationality. I tend to side with this understanding, but believe that there are many holes left to fill in. Whose rationality are we basing this upon? The rational understanding of the majority of people? If so, nykrindc runs into the same problem that he rails against in his comments on homosexuality. You could appeal to logical principles that would lead one to ascribe value to human life, but nykrindc has not done that here. Personally, I believe that pathos based on similarity and relatability with one's fellow man can generate the kind of valuation you desire to attach. I challenge nykrindc to buttress his argument or amend his prior response. Rather than linking, I would like to see a relevant summary of a philosophical argument.
Anon,
You are correct. Simple should never be used in a philosophical debate. I admit, that I was being facetious when writing parts of the post. This is an important discussion, however, due to time constraints (paper deadlines mostly) I will be unable to take up your challenge fully until later on in the month.
Briefly, I would suggest that the beginning of any philophical framework addressing rationality and morality would likely begin with something akin to Thomas Scanlon's theory on right and wrong, which is based on a contractualist philosphy underpinned by a social contract-like construct. To arrive at the definition of the good, or the bad, (according to Scanlon) a person must justify his actions or beliefs in terms that others could not reasonably reject.
I also agree with your contention that similarity and relatability with one's fellow men can generate such a valuation, but this is also fraught with danger, as one gets into the issue of how you define your fellow men. That is do you distinguish between and among groups, and how does that affect the manner in which you attach value to human life (i.e. if they are sub-human do they deserve to be treated as we would 'real' humans?). That said, a theory revolving around Scanlon's main thesis would likely attenuate or address this deficiency in a satisfactory manner.
Additionally, Anon and Fenian, if you recall even Jesus and Paul sought to address morality without appealing to God directly. I can't give you direct quotes but Paul said something akin to "Love your fellow man as you love thyself" and Jesus argued that you should always "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Notice how both, in these statements, appealed to human reason based on what Anon has termed similarity and relatability, and not on God's wrath or fear of punishment. Now the argument can only be taken so far, I'm the first to admit, but the point I think stands.
I will try to come up with a better argument as time allows.
Nykrindc,
I like very much where you are going with this with the "contractualist philosophy underpinned by a social contract-like construct". I think Scanlon might run into trouble with the latter half, however, with the "in terms that others could not reasonably reject". Some people will always reject your premises and some post-modernists and moral relativists argue that there is no possible way to convince someone else that your theories are more correct than theirs. If that is true, then we have no basis for morality whatsoever. I agree with many of your arguments, however, and below I will paste some further outside discussion I have had with Fenian on this matter:
Anon said:
"1.) On what grounds can an atheist condemn Hitler?
This question poses a specific take on a more popularly generalized question. Can there be morality without the existence of a God? To this question I would answer yes. We have codified a common law based on agreed upon standards of conduct that came about through years of interpersonal relations. One could certainly debate whether these standards were imbued upon us through ages of religious thinking, but there is at least reason to believe they may spontaneously arise in atheistic societies. This has been defended in the philosphical works of Rousseau, Hobbes, Kant, and Rawls.
In Rousseau's terms we can look to an innate since of human comparability whereby we can empathize with the plights and feelings of others. We do not wish to harm others because we know what the pain would feel like and therefore take pity on our fellow men. The work of Hobbes would lead us to believe that we restrain ourselves and give up freedoms only to the extent that we can ensure our own safety. Therefore we obey laws and regulations out of mutual fear of what could happen to us if there were no law. Kant, on the other hand, secularizes and rephrases the "golden rule" and declares that logic dictates that we "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law " (do unto others as we would have them do unto us). Similarly, Rawls envisions a hypothetical "veil of ignorance" whereby we should act as if had no idea about how we would turn out in life (black/white, rich/poor, etc). "
Fenian Fox said:
"I like your generalization to the moral question, though it would be interesting to hear an actual condemnation made of Hitler based on one of the defined philosophies to move the discussion from the ivory tower to the concentration camps, if you will.
- You state that we have codified common laws - what laws constrained Hitler?
- I concur with your conceit that the philosophers you name spring from civilizations fundamentally informed by religious traditions, but would not choose to challenge your assertions on these grounds alone.
- Rousseau's thoughts as presented offer a source for morality, but seem incapable of condemning Hitler. Should we condemn Hitler for his lack of empathy? On what grounds do you define an appropriate level of human empathy?
- I think your discussion of Hobbes again highlights a motivation for moral action, but cannot condemn Hitler. Hitler established himself as the law and therefore freed himself from the fear and constrain which the law provides.
- Kant states an ideal in which human action is purely governed by logic. No human achieves this ideal, especially not Hitler. Further, I am skeptical that a pure logic able to direct all ethical actions exists. I am not convinced that logic dictates such a golden rule.
...
I noticed that I skipped Rawls. Like the others, you have him envisioning, but is he able to condemn? Why am I compelled to accept his vision? That being said, I agree with Rawls, but on the grounds that human kind has an innate value because it was created by God, imbued with a soul, and given to us by Christ as the object of our love, (love your neighbor as yourself).
If I am merely an animal in a creatorless universe, I would strive to maximize the fulfillment of my appetites and to sustain my existence for as long as possible. Hitler seemingly was able to satisfy his appetites as well as anyone in history. His appetite to be a world conqueror ultmately conflicted with his ability to sustain his existence.
It is more interesting to consider existence in a universe with a non Christian creator."
Anon responded:
"Hitler should have been reigned in by the unwritten common law of principles that guides human behavior. These laws have been codified individually in respective countries, but did not find international designation until after the atrocities of WWII. Prior to an international governance body, there was no possibility for written law. WWII saw the establishment of the United Nations (or at least its predecessor originally) and the institution of the Geneva Code. The speed with which these things appeared after witnessing the horrors of Hitler and the Nazi's is a testament to the underlying common understanding which was already in place.
I believe personally that humans have an innate sense of right and wrong that is developed through social interactions and the many methodologies that I have already presented.
With regard to Hitler's lack of empathy:
One possibility is that Hitler regarded Jews with such disdain that he no longer considered them to be human. By denying the scientific and sociological similarity between he and them, he was able to clean his conscience of moral infractions. Were this the case, he would be merely mistaken and should be condemned for acting violently on knowingly controversial facts (NOT opinons). This condemnation can be applied to slavery in the Ante-Bellum United States. The level with which the condemnation should apply would be based on the degree of violence and the knowledge that your "facts" could be controverted. In other words, to what degree do you know that someone is similar to yourself. The reason race and heritage are such easy discriminators is because they are highly visible separators. Hitler deserves a high level of condemnation because he knew well that Jews were living aside Germans for a great amount of time and knew that they were in fact very similar to himself. Moreover, the extent to which he tortured and killed was so great it would take an ENOURMOUS amount of dissimilarity to be justified (perhaps the way we treat cockroaches).
From the Hobbesian perspective:
To take up Hobbes' view, the extent to which the Germans handed over their freedom to him in order to ensure their safety, then he was granted all rights and powers associated with the German government to do so. In this view, the Germans have no right to condemn Hitler as they empowered him. Those that did not empower him, however, or those that did not enjoy safety from the exchange, have every right to condemn him for endangering them.
In defense of Kant:
While pure logic surely does not govern our every action (or else we would all be computers), I believe that there is a lot of subconcious calculation that underlies our actions and provides motivation for them. While I do not believe that it forces us to abide by it, I would again argue that it imparts us with a general knowledge of right and wrong. I would argue that Kant's theory is a translation of this internal logic. In other words, I look to Kant as the concise expression of the other theories. It is our decision to act against the logic of right and wrong that enables us to be morally condemned. I believe that Hitler innately knew what he was doing was wrong and did it anyway. When Hitler was finally cornered he did not declare that he was innocent of any wrong doing. He shot himself in the head.
The extent that we can condemn anything is the extent to which we can convince others that it is wrong. In that regard, it would seem far easier to convince someone, as an atheist would, on the grounds of logic and reason rather than on any kind of religious grounds. Especially since Christianity at least partially enabled the hate for the Jews that lead to the Holocaust.
Why not act just according to our appetites?
I believe that humans are rationally self-intersted beings. This rational self interest does not exist in a vacuum however. One of our chief desires is the desire for companionship. For that reason, man is a social animal. We are trained from infancy that others do not respond well to our attempts to take whatever we want. We learn through the socialization process that our safety and well-being is protected by a delicate balance of trade-offs and compromises. We compute all this information internally and apply it to everyday situations. We understand that sometimes it is in our best interest to act in the interests of others.
What if we can get away with it?
Ah, the famous "ring of Gyges" problem. What if it was known ahead of time that there would be no repurcussions for the crimes one would commit? What kind of code of conduct would someone then follow? I don't like this question for a number of reasons. First of all, I believe the baseline hyphothetical to be impossible. You can never know with 100 percent certainty that you will get away with something. It is this very uncertainty that creates the fear that helps properly align our behavior. To live without fear, especially the fear of death (or in the Christian sense, eternal damnation), is to attain a form of immortality and become something other than human.
I believe it is necessary to imbue our morals with a sense of logic and reason in order to attain third party validation when trying to convince others that they are correct. While it may seem strange to have to convince someone of something that exists innately inside of them, I would argue that many people had no knowledge of the inner workings of their circulatory system before modern science, but that didn't keep their hearts from beating. Let me be clear here that I do not belive logic and reason is incompatible with God. Quite the contrary, I believe logic and reason to be perfectly compatible with God. That is to say, I believe that God created logic and reason for a purpose. In fact, my conception is God is that he is nearly equivalent to logic and reason."
Post a Comment
<< Home