Hitler: Why we need a Science of Morality
Tom Tedrick
A very nice article, Michael. Thanks!
Gives me a chance to state my positions more clearly, in their
extreme form :-)
>>My fundamental example is Hitler's Germany. If more people had
>>been trained to think logically, my theory is that Hitler's
>>irrational doctrines would not have had such an impact. [Tedrick]
> Of course, then Hitler would have been more logical, too.
I can't accept that as self-evident.
>Whether that would have made him more dangerous is another question.
A question well worth discussing.
>It is my contention that Hitler's Germany lacked morality, not logic.
Good. I disagree. I think we are getting closer to the heart of
the matter.
>Many very logical people consider "self-interest" theories of morality
>to be the most rational ones.
At present, I do also.
>Presumably, it is in one's self-interest to avoid causing harm to
>others for fear of possible retaliation.
I would agree with that, although there is more to be said about
this particular point.
>But what if it appears to be in the majority's self-interest to
>suppress the minority and all possibility of their retaliation?
I never said the majority shouldn't oppress the minority.
I happen to believe it is not optimal in many cases, but
rather a sign of lack of intelligence among the majority
when such oppression occurs. Brute force suppresion is
usually the method used by the stupid, not the logical.
But sometimes destruction of a minority is unavoidable, if
one is to live. I kill ants and spiders and snakes from
time to time. I don't like to do it but I've tried total
non-violence and it doesn't make sense to me. Life is
violent at times. It is the creator's fault (whoever he/she
is) as far as I am concerned, not mine.
>Given Hitler's basic assumptions, his actions followed logically enough.
NO! His actions were *NOT* logical!
In addition, logic could have served to refute some of his basic assumptions.
>And Germany has had relatively high standards of education for a long time.
I went to school one year in Europe as a child. The standards of education
were higher in some ways. In some ways American education is better.
(Particularly in allowing students to continue as long as they want.
At the time I was in school in Europe, there was a "weed-out" process
at each level, where a certain number of students were shunted away
from higher education.) What I particularly am arguing for is for
a one year course in symbolic logic at the high school levels
for all students who are capable of taking trig. So as to
widen the base of the population which is familar with logic.
I think there is too much elitism in education in the sense that
the masses are "washed off" as hopeless. In Europe,
I have been surprised to sense more class consciousness and
elitism than I expected.
In a democracy, it is important to educate the masses in logic
if intelligent political judgements are to be made by the voters.
>Personally, I do not think that Hitler's doctrines were vastly
>more irrational than those I prefer.
I have studied the man. He was not logical. He was clever, charismatic,
had a very strong will, was very intelligent, had a good memory, etc.
But he wasn't logical, rather he was more intuitive. His reasoning
was full of flaws.
>For example, I believe:
>1: All people are equal
In some ways they are, in some ways they aren't.
>2: Only those points of view which advocate harming or suppressing
> other people should be suppressed
Not self-evident to me.
> Clearly, (1) is ridiculous in any scientific sense. (2) is blatantly
> self contradictory. Yet I believe them, although I cannot support them
> rationally.
>
> When I say that Hitler's Germany suffered from lack of morality, it is
> not my intent to support authoritarian morality dictated by government or
> religious institutions. On the contrary, it is clear that a population
> whose morality is dictated by father figures is prone to Hitleresque abuse.
>
> Traditional religious morality is equivalent to a self-interest morality
> with an authoritarian God figure to mete out reward and punishment.
Some truth in that, but I can't accept it as a premise for further argument.
>My theory is that the Germans of the 1930's, an intelligent and highly
> authoritarian people for whom religion was rapidly becoming a thing of
> the past, were highly susceptible to total moral corruption.
This is an interesting point of view, however I would argue that
the Germans were not uniquely susceptible. It could have happened
in other countries. However, the excellence of the German military
made Hitler particularly dangerous.
Also, "total moral corruption" is too simplistic and extreme
as far as I am concerned. Many Germans were against Hitler,
many Germans were communists, etc. Any population not trained
to think for themselves (ie trained in logic) is susceptible.
(Not that logic is sufficient training, but it helps.)
> Tragically, one of the dominant philosophies of the day, logical
> positivism, encouraged disregard of `metaphysical' subjects like
> morality and ethics. Ironically, the logical positivists included many
> whose flight from the Nazi terror was largely responsible for the breakup
> of logical positivism.
Well, going off on a tangent it is highly ironic that Godel, etal,
were working in Germany before and during Hitler's rise to power,
and that the advent of the Nazis broke up the group at Goettingen
(sorry for the spelling if its wrong). "Logic for the masses"
might have been an antidote for Nazism.
Also note that Nazi power was largely based on manipulation
of the masses through propaganda. Logic is a useful tool
for analyzing fallacious arguments and cutting through
propaganda.
> I still find it peculiar to hear people speak of physics and math as
> "objective" while labeling morality and ethics as "subjective".
Its easy to explain. They are objective because the community of
mathematicians, for example, seems to agree on many key points.
The idea is to formalize things to such a degree that it can
withstand critical analysis. In morality and ethics there seems
to be endless debate and disagreement between the best people
in the field.
Not to say everyone agrees on everything in mathematics or that
I have given a complete or non-controversial explanation, but
there does seem to be a large area of common ground in mathematics
where everyone in the field is more or less in agreement.
>I believe this is due to historical reasons -- the metaphysical carving up
> of human wisdom into spiritual and physical that occurred at about the
> time of Descartes. This post-Galilean truce between science and religion
> continued until Darwin unintentionally demolished what was commonly felt
> to be basis of religion. That done, there are now two attitudes towards
> what were traditionally held to be spiritual concerns:
>
> 1: Discard them as "non-objective"
> 2: Decide that they merit serious study, thereby making them
> "objective".
>
> By my account, morality can be studied objectively, freed from all
> religious trappings. One CAN "objectively" analyze moral theories and
> eliminate those which are contradictory, self defeating, not
> evolutionarily stable, or, most importantly, in violation of
> deeply held moral axioms, such as the golden rule.
>
Well, this is interesting, but tangential to my "Logic for the masses"
program, so I will pass over it in silence. I do agree that you should
pursue these problems. Good luck!
> Derek Parfit, from "Reasons and Persons":
>
> Some people believe that there cannot be progress in ethics, since
> everything has already been said. Like Rawls and Nagel, I believe
> the opposite. How many people have made nonreligious ethics their
> life's work? .. Before the recent past, very few Atheists made
> Ethics their life's work. Buddha may be among the very few, as may
> be Confucius, and a few ancient Greeks and Romans. After more than
> 1000 years, there were a few more between the 16th and 20th
> centuries.. Hume.. Sidgwick.. [Most of the others] did not do
> ethics, they did meta-ethics. They did not ask which outcomes would
> be .. right and wrong. They asked.. only the meaning of moral
> language, and the question of objectivity. Nonreligious ethics has
> been systematically studied, by many people, only since about 1960.
> Compared with the other sciences, nonreligious ethics is the
> youngest and the least advanced..
>
> Belief in God prevented the development of moral reasoning.
>
>-michael
Thanks Michael. Perhaps we are in agreement in some sense. It sounds
like you are trying to study morality and ethics scientifically.
That would be in *AGREEMENT* with my ideas.
David desJardins
>2: Only those points of view which advocate harming or suppressing
>
>(2) is blatantly self-contradictory. Yet I believe them, although I
>cannot support them rationally. ....
>
>I still find it peculiar to hear people speak of physics and math as
>believe this is due to historical reasons ....
Well, when it is involves beliefs which you yourself admit are self-
contradictory, how can you call it anything but subjective??
>One CAN "objectively" analyze moral theories and eliminate those which are
>contradictory, self defeating, not evolutionarily stable, or, most impor-
>tantly, in violation of deeply held moral axioms, such as the golden rule.
This was originally about Naziism, so let me point out that another's
"deeply held moral axiom" might be (indeed, was) "Jews are evil." If your
whole moral system is based on an arbitary choice of moral axiom, how can
you say that it is not subjective??
-- David desJardins
Barry Shein
Re: Would logic have prevented the rise of Nazism?
Although I must admit I am not acting at a terribly high intellectual
level, somehow I find this claim astounding and completely denying
how, in many ways, I heretofore have considered Nazism.
I thought a common thesis was that Hitler utilized modern science (or
an appearance of the same) to a technologically entranced German
people to justify his social engineering.
For example, his racism was based largely on an extrapolation of
current eugenic theories. He referred to mongrel races and a need
to genetically purify an Aryan race. His anti-semitic campaigns
did not stop with simple "we don't like them", he (let's take 'he'
from here on to represent the general Nazi race campaigns) used
biological arguments with diagrams of "Jews" showing how their
physical characteristics clearly belied an inferior form of human
being (not unlike racists in this country trying to show that the
flat nose bridges of blacks shows they are closer to monkeys and
other such drivel.)
Consider all those experiments under the guise of science in the
concentration camps (like tying together the legs of a woman in
labor just to see what happened.)
I THOUGHT THE POINT WAS HITLER'S NAZI GERMANY WAS PRECISELY SCIENCE
GONE MAD.
You know, those cold, logical germans, killing off the impure blood,
doing their secret weapons and other war research etc.
Now, I suppose one could argue that the point is that logic is abused
throughout and the problem was that people were fooled by simple
logical prestidigitation, but somehow I feel if that is the argument
it is a poorly put argument, there is something more important going
on (like that people will believe what they want to believe, mass
hysteria etc.)
No, I don't think it's logic that would save humanity, it's humanity
recognizing humanity, unless that also is logic.
-Barry Shein, Boston University
Tom Tedrick
Barry. For shame. You of all people? One of the most insightful
posters I have read? I can't believe you wrote this.
Anyway, you guys have made me so mad that I hereby am declaring
a holy net.reference war. I am going to drown you in references
to Hitler's irrationality until you say "UNCLE! I've had enough!
Hitler was not logical!"
>Re: Would logic have prevented the rise of Nazism?
>Although I must admit I am not acting at a terribly high intellectual
>level, somehow I find this claim astounding and completely denying
>how, in many ways, I heretofore have considered Nazism.
>
>I thought a common thesis was that Hitler utilized modern science (or
>an appearance of the same) to a technologically entranced German
>people to justify his social engineering.
Hitler perverted science to his own ends. You can hardly call
Nazism scientific. It was anti-scientific. It was mindless
application of technology, perhaps, but not scientific. The
very essence of science is freedom of thought, freedom of
inquiry, freedom for communication and interaction within
the scientific community, independent critical analysis by
scientists. Hitler's program was complete subordination of
the German people to the will of a single individual, the
Fuhrer. Have you studied Nazism?
>For example, his racism was based largely on an extrapolation of
>current eugenic theories. He referred to mongrel races and a need
>to genetically purify an Aryan race.
Do you claim this program was scientific?
>His anti-semitic campaigns
>did not stop with simple "we don't like them", he (let's take 'he'
>from here on to represent the general Nazi race campaigns) used
>biological arguments with diagrams of "Jews" showing how their
>physical characteristics clearly belied an inferior form of human
>being (not unlike racists in this country trying to show that the
>flat nose bridges of blacks shows they are closer to monkeys and
>other such drivel.)
Do you claim these demonstrations were scientific? Would you
consider the possibility that they were propaganda designed
to mislead the German public and others?
>Consider all those experiments under the guise of science in the
Yes. *IN THE GUISE OF SCIENCE*. *NOT SCIENCE*.
>concentration camps (like tying together the legs of a woman in
>labor just to see what happened.)
You call that science?
>I THOUGHT THE POINT WAS HITLER'S NAZI GERMANY WAS PRECISELY SCIENCE
> GONE MAD.
Perhaps application of technology and method gone mad. "Science"
without freedom of thought is not science.
>You know, those cold, logical germans, killing off the impure blood,
Logical in what sense? How can you be logical without questioning
everything? Machine-like perhaps. Is that what you think logic
is all about, functioning like a machine?
>doing their secret weapons and other war research etc.
As a matter of fact, the Nazis drove out many scientists, and
many (even non-Jewish) left of their own accord. These logical people
*DID* recognize Nazism for what it was, *BEFORE* it was too late.
Perhaps I have an unusual perspective, since I know several of
these individuals personally (some of whom are world recognized
authorities in their fields, whom I will not name).
One of these (my neighbor, who is like a father to me), at a
testamonial dinner for his 75th birthday, included in the
printed program which was distributed to the guests, the
statement "the greatest achievement of my life was in recognizing
Nazism for what it was, and leaving Germany" in the early
1930's.
Hitler claimed that he could "do without this Jewish physics,
for the first 100 years" of his "1000 year reich".
The Nazi war effort suffered severely due to the loss of these
scientists, while the allied war effort was immeasurably aided.
Have you forgotten about the atomic bomb?
>Now, I suppose one could argue that the point is that logic is abused
>throughout
I claim it was *NOT UNDERSTOOD*, especially by Hitler. Hitler
was *ANTI-INTELLECTUAL*. He believed that *HIS WILL AND INTUITION*
were supreme, that he was a *SUPERMAN* and *TRANSCENDED REASON*.
>and the problem was that people were fooled by simple
Yes, the people *WERE FOOLED*. The question is, *HOW CAN
PEOPLE AVOID BEING FOOLED*.
>logical prestidigitation, but somehow I feel if that is the argument
>it is a poorly put argument, there is something more important going
>on (like that people will believe what they want to believe, mass
>hysteria etc.)
How do you propose to counteract these dangerous tendencies, if
not by developing people who can think for themselves, question
their belief systems, and question the views of the mob?
Is not a study of logic useful for these purposes?
>No, I don't think it's logic that would save humanity, it's humanity
>recognizing humanity, unless that also is logic.
How can humanity recognize truth? Does logic have no part to play?
> -Barry Shein, Boston University
I feel very sad today. There are tears in my eyes right now Barry.
Laura Creighton
me that the majority of high school students could learn logic, even if
were a required subject. What is worse, it is not clear to me that the
bulk of high school teachers could *teach* it. But then, I remember
*my* grade eight year as a nearly continual battle wioth a math teacher
who was convinced that there was no such thing as negative infinity,
*by definition* whereas I was certain that there had to be one ...
--
Laura Creighton
ihnp4!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura
to...@lll-crg.arpa
Tom Tedrick
>From observing a decade of my mother's grade 8 students, it is not clear to
>me that the majority of high school students could learn logic, even if
>were a required subject.
As stated, the plan was to make it required for those who were
at a level where they could take trig. Even logic has some prerequisites.
>What is worse, it is not clear to me that the
>bulk of high school teachers could *teach* it.
Ahhh. I was hoping someone would fall into that trap.
I would also be very surprised if many could teach it.
But at least by trying to teach it, they might learn
something themselves. As we all (should) know, it is
usually the teacher who learns the most from the course.
Frank Adams
>They use logic, consider: After the Chernobyl disaster I heard an interview
>with a 'nuclear scientist', the issue of the Hanford, WA plant (which
>apparently is very similar in design to the Chernobyl plant) came up.
>He said, "but that is irrelevant to the commercial nuclear power industry,
>that is not a commercial plant..." (I was *so* gratified when the interviewer
>snapped back "that won't make much difference to the residents of the area
>of the plant blows"...it was so satisfying to see an honest, uncalculated
>reaction on tv.)
>
>Is this not logic in the service of madness? Whether or not the Hanford
>plant presents a danger, is that argument not "logical", but flawed?
In a word, no. This is not logic. It is a superficially logical argument,
but on closer examination, it is flawed.
Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
P.S. Where is Hanford? In particular, how close is it to any of the major
population centers?
Tom Tedrick
>Although they perhaps used a veneer of technologism (!?!?) to rationalize
>and implement their madness, ultimately it was sheer power and terror
>that carried them to their thrones.
It was also propaganda, lies, manipulation of the masses using deceit.
Should we debate the truth of that statement?
If we accept it as true, then I ask: how is one to guard against
being manipulated by propaganda? I claim logic is vital, as it
allows one to analyze arguments and root out fallacies.
How are we to stop the masses from being manipulated by demagogues?
I claim "logic for the masses" would at least make it more
difficult for demagogues to control the masses.
>As usual, Hitler remains the bad example, useable for any purpose, for
>any side of an argument.
NO! Not useable for any purpose. I claim lack of logic was the
FUNDAMENTAL flaw in his personality. I claim deficient logic
was the FUNDAMENTAL problem which allowed National Socialism
to flourish.
This conclusion is the result of 20 years of study and thought
on my part. I hope you will not take it lightly.
>I believe somewhere here we straddle the logic of science, what is
>good science and the authority of science. For example, I am fully
>convinced the authority of Science is leading us, like the pied-piper
>of legend, to almost certain doom with their nuclear madness.
Can we blame logic for this? Who forced us to create atomic weapons
by his efforts to create his own?
(Hint: his initials were A.H. Want references?)
Is it not logic that compels us to question the road we are taking?
Is it not lack of logic that prevents world leaders from cooperating
to stop this insane competition that may lead to utter catastrophe?
>Is this logic?
I call it madness, not logic.
>They use logic, consider: After the Chernobyl disaster I heard an interview
>with a 'nuclear scientist', the issue of the Hanford, WA plant (which
>apparently is very similar in design to the Chernobyl plant) came up.
>He said, "but that is irrelevant to the commercial nuclear power industry,
>that is not a commercial plant..."
YOU are the one using logic. I see no logic in the "scientist's" statement.
>(I was *so* gratified when the interviewer
>snapped back "that won't make much difference to the residents of the area
>of the plant blows"...it was so satisfying to see an honest, uncalculated
>reaction on tv.)
Not to mention straightforward and logical.
>Is this not logic in the service of madness?
It is *SOPHISTRY* in the service of madness. It is *LOGIC* which
we use to *REFUTE* sophistry.
>Whether or not the Hanford
>plant presents a danger, is that argument not "logical", but flawed?
No, it is *ILLOGICAL SOPHISTRY*.
Logic was invented by Aristotle primarily to *REFUTE SOPHISTRY*.
I think you have gotten the two (logic & sophistry) confused.
>Unfortunately logic rests on facts from which to draw conclusions,
What? That presents no problem at all. If you aren't convinced
that the premises are true, you don't even have to analyze the
argument to refuse to accept the conclusion.
It is only when confronted with tricky reasoning that starts
from premises which you accept that you have to worry about
refuting the argument through analyzing its logic.
>there is no way even the most educated populace can begin to assimilate
>the necessary facts from which to draw logical conclusions (such as
>become expert in nuclear power plant design.)
So reject everything that you don't know is true. Or, if you
are not a philosopher, at least be aware that you are operating
under assumptions which may or may not be true. Don't be misled
by the "experts" into blindly accepting as true that which is unproven.
>I think the resolution is, logic may be necessary, but it is by no
>means sufficient.
Sure. No argument with that!
Dr.Schlesinger
It does make a lot of difference whether a reactor is an electric
power plant or a military or research reactor. The Hanford plant,
which is indeed of the latter variety, as well as several other
American reactors which have some design similarity to the Chernobyl
one, produces fissionable material. It runs at much lower capacity,
involves far less heat, and has significantly less general production
pressure associated with its operation. Hence there are a number of
objective, empirically verifiable reasons to calculate the safety
risks of such machines at much lower levels. It seems quite normal
and logical to mention this in response to someone's concerns about
safety. Also, a total of about two dozen families reside within the
high risk radius (10-20 miles) of the Hanford plant, according to
NYTimes report.
Tom Schlesinger, Plymouth State College, Plymouth, N.H. 03264
uucp: decvax!dartvax!psc70!psc90!tos
Stanley Friesen
>
>an appearance of the same) to a technologically entranced German
>people to justify his social engineering.
I would say that he used the *appearance* only, Hitler had no
conception of the reality of science any more than he was a good art
critic!
>
>For example, his racism was based largely on an extrapolation of
>current eugenic theories. He referred to mongrel races and a need
>to genetically purify an Aryan race.
Rather it was *justified*(not based) on appeals to *popular*
(mis)conceptions of the current eugenics theories.
>(not unlike racists in this country trying to show that the
>flat nose bridges of blacks shows they are closer to monkeys and
>other such drivel.)
Very like, and his drivel was no more scientific than that of
US racists! Just becaues some idea is justified by an appeal to
science does *not* make it science.
>
>Consider all those experiments under the guise of science in the
>concentration camps (like tying together the legs of a woman in
>labor just to see what happened.)
This is hardly science. Doing something "just to see what
happens" is *not* the scientific method. These people were using
science as an excuse to play, with human beings as toys.
>
>I THOUGHT THE POINT WAS HITLER'S NAZI GERMANY WAS PRECISELY SCIENCE
> GONE MAD.
NO, it was society gone mad, with science being used as an
excuse and a justification. Very little true science was done under
Hitler, that is probably why we developed the A-bomb instead of them.
>
>You know, those cold, logical germans, killing off the impure blood,
>doing their secret weapons and other war research etc.
Hitler hardly appealed to cold logic, his was a *very*
emotional approach. When giving speaches he practically frothed at the
mouth. He gained support by calling on powerful emotions not logic.
--
Sarima (Stanley Friesen)
UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ??
Dr.Schlesinger
>>an appearance of the same) to a technologically entranced German
>>people to justify his social engineering.
A "common" thesis only in a very narrow, and mainly misleading
context. Most people in Europe, and certainly in Germany, understood
very well that the Nazis were ultra-nationalists, and this was
anything but "scientific." Note especially that much of the scientific
community had to flee, and that wasn't only Jews.