Richard Dawkins on the morality of hitler: Are you kidding me??

[AntiTheist]

We all know that there are men who think that it’s perfectly moral to have sex with children (boys and girls). And atheists should support them in that, since, in atheist thinking, nothing is objectively moral or immoral.

Oh, kalt. How you’re disappointing me now.

First of all, it’s not true that in “atheist thinking, nothing is objectively moral or immoral.” There are plenty of atheists who do believe in morality. I’m not one of them, but this isn’t a position that applies to all atheists.

Second, just because I don’t think that morality exists doesn’t mean that I don’t want to legislate my values. This is really important to grasp. I want to punish child abusers not because I think that they’re “evil” – I want to punish them because my values lead me to want to live in a society where children are protected and child abusers are punished. That’s it.

I’m sure that child abusers think that they are not hurting children. I don’t care. I’m going to favor punishing them anyway. Because that’s how my values are.

Frankly, your idea that atheists “should” favor all manner of atrocities just because some of us don’t think there’s such a thing as morality is dumb. Oh, kalt. After so many smart posts you disappoint me like this…I know you’ll do better next time.

miguel:

You said “Since I don’t think that evil exists, I don’t think that it’s a “problem” that needs to be accounted for in any particular way.” And I was simply trying to bring you back to earth by pointing out the need to restrain this thing that supposedly doesn’t exist.

In context, I was talking about it being a “problem” theologically or metaphysically, as in “the problem of evil,” which is the question I was asked.

You need to pay attention to context.

I hear what you’re saying. I don’t entirely disagree. Sure, there is a tendency for the mob to follow in lock-step. I wouldn’t necessarily attribute that to the vast majority seeing the dominant values as good. Yes, there’ll be some fanatical Nazis. Most of the rest will be too intimidated to express disapproval. But a few will disapprove and the regime will be putting them on trains to Auschwitz.

Well, I was specifically responding to a hypothetical world in which the Nazis had won WWII and a new generation or two had been raised entirely post-WWII. I agree that there were plenty of intimidated people who were around when the Nazis took power – but I think that a few generations raised under a victorious Nazi regime would feel very differently. Again, it’s all hypothetical, so it’s really silly to speculate any further, but the point is that a lot of what people value and call “good” is a function of social conditioning. If you were born in India, for instance, there’s a very high likelihood that you would consider it “evil” to eat a hamburger.

Oh, and Happy Turkey Day, everyone.

 

[miguel]

Well, I was specifically responding to a hypothetical world in which the Nazis had won WWII and a new generation or two had been raised entirely post-WWII. I agree that there were plenty of intimidated people who were around when the Nazis took power – but I think that a few generations raised under a victorious Nazi regime would feel very differently. Again, it’s all hypothetical, so it’s really silly to speculate any further, but the point is that a lot of what people value and call “good” is a function of social conditioning. If you were born in India, for instance, there’s a very high likelihood that you would consider it “evil” to eat a hamburger.

I agree social conditioning can partly ruin the moral conscience of a people. But since Catholics believe the moral law is written on our hearts by our Creator, I don’t believe it can be completely extinguished by social conditioning.

 

[kalt]

Oh, kalt. How you’re disappointing me now.

First of all, it’s not true that in “atheist thinking, nothing is objectively moral or immoral.” There are plenty of atheists who do believe in morality. I’m not one of them, but this isn’t a position that applies to all atheists.

Second, just because I don’t think that morality exists doesn’t mean that I don’t want to legislate my values. This is really important to grasp. I want to punish child abusers not because I think that they’re “evil” – I want to punish them because my values lead me to want to live in a society where children are protected and child abusers are punished. That’s it.

I’m sure that child abusers think that they are not hurting children. I don’t care. I’m going to favor punishing them anyway. Because that’s how my values are.

Punished for what? The Man/Boy folk don’t think they’re hurting the kids. In fact, they “love” the boys. You want to punish others based on nothing more than your dislike of an “act of love”. You have no objective moral code to explain this dislike, but you feel free to toss men in jail because you personally disagree with their lifestyle.

I don’t think I said that atheists think there is no morality. I think I said that they think there is no objective morality, and so there is no objective good or bad. With no objective moral code to appeal to, who is an atheist to dictate his “values” to society?

As I said earlier, the “hurt” argument falls apart because of your own claim that there is no objective morality. “Hurt” is a subjective determination. Prostitution and the drug trade are good examples of supposedly “victimless” crimes. According to some people, no one is hurt by prostitution or the drug trade, because everyone involved is (in theory, at least) a willing participant.

So, without an objective moral code to appeal to, you have no basis to punish anyone. You don’t get to punish people simply because you don’t like what they do. Or simply because you *think *they are hurting someone else (or even themselves), because you don’t believe in objective morality–there is no objective good or evil, so you can’t tell others that they have to live by your rules. Well, you can say whatever you want, but when you do this, you are saying one thing and doing another.

If there is no objective morality, everyone should be as free as you to decide for himself what a moral act is or isn’t. Or, to use your jargon, to decide what his values dictate for himself. There is not objective good or bad, so your idea of “hurt” is merely your idea, and it’s not binding on anyone else.

You are arguing for an individual deterimination of “values”, but then you want to impose your “values” on society. If there is no objectve morality (no objective set of values), society has no authority to impose any set of values.

Societies have routinely written bad law. Some in the US were the slave laws. With no objective moral law to appeal to, anti-slavery folks would have had nothing more to say about slavery than you have said here about the Man/Boy situation–that you don’t like it. You have no particular reason to object to it, because you don’t believe in objective good or bad. Hurt is subjective, obviously, so you can’t even appeal to that.

It seems that, though you think you don’t believe in an objective morality, you do. When you say that you know that man/boy love is bad behavior, you are saying that there is an objective code that you filter this behavior through. It’s the objective code that you filter everything through, apparently without realizing it. You are so sure that this code is correct, that you’re willing to force others to live by it or suffer the consequences.

If you truly believed that there was no objective good or evil, you would know that another’s behavior can’t be objectively analyzed for good or evil and so can never be punished. Without an idea of what is objectively good or bad, no laws can be written, because good and bad can’t be determined.

There has to be an objective moral code to work from. Without it, there is no way to determine right from wrong. There would be only likes and dislikes. And who really cares what you don’t like? No one should have to go to jail because you don’t happen to like their behavior.

 

[AntiTheist]

Punished for what?

For doing things to kids that I don’t approve of adults doing.

The Man/Boy folk don’t think they’re hurting the kids.

I told you, I don’t care what they think.

You want to punish others based on nothing more than your dislike of an “act of love”.

Yep.

You have no objective moral code to explain this dislike, but you feel free to toss men in jail because you personally disagree with their lifestyle.

I don’t have an objective code of food that explains my dislike of brussel sprouts, either. But I dislike them, so I abstain from eating them. I similarly dislike a society where adults are free to have sex with kids, so I favor laws that lock those people up.

I don’t think I said that atheists think there is no morality. I think I said that they think there is no objective morality, and so there is no objective good or bad.

Not true. There are atheists who believe there is objective morality; I’ve heard some of them argue for it on philosophical grounds. I disagree with them, but they certainly exist. In fact, I’d wager that most atheists believe in objective morality.

With no objective moral code to appeal to, who is an atheist to dictate his “values” to society?

I’m a member of society. And in this society, the vast, vast majority of people don’t want a society where adults can have sex with kids. I’m in good company, it looks like.

You don’t get to punish people simply because you don’t like what they do.

Society gets to punish people who violate societal codes and laws. We don’t need any magical “authority” – society is its own authority. Who’s going to stop society? You?

there is no objective good or evil, so you can’t tell others that they have to live by your rules. Well, you can say whatever you want, but when you do this, you are saying one thing and doing another.

You seriously need to sit down and think about this. There’s no contradiction between saying that there is no objective “good” and “bad” and also saying, “I prefer a society where X is the law because that’s the way my values are.”

If there is no objectve morality (no objective set of values), society has no authority to impose any set of values.

Well, whether society has “authority” or not (whatever that means), society does impose its values on people.

Maybe this will help: moral codes tend to be codifications of values. The reason that having sex with children is considered immoral is because the vast majority of people have no desire whatsoever to do it. It’s not like most people are dying to have sex with kids and they’re held back by their moral code. It’s just that most people don’t want to do it – it’s not something their values support.

When the community discovers someone doing it, the community wants to punish that individual because it wants its society not to contain that act.

There’s absolutely nothing here that requires “moral codes” or “authority” or any of the other nonsense your post is talking about. You seriously need to wake up.

 

[ronin67]

Calling something “evil” is a value judgment. It’s a really strong way of saying, “I don’t like it.”

You or I might call a murder “evil.” Hitler might call Jewish bankers “evil.” A Hindu might call eating a hamburger “evil.” They’re all examples of values at work.

However, there’s no such thing as “evil” outside of our heads. There’s only what is and our value judgments about what is.

Please note that Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and a lot of other atheists would probably disagree with me on this. I’m advancing a particular philosophical position.

Please also note that it is the belief in morality – for example, Hitler’s belief that the Jews are “evil” – that often leads to atrocity.

WOW. The evil one has you fooled good. See, what happens when a person deems something evil on his own accord as compared to using God’s guidelines. Yes, God in the Old Testament punished those who were evil (he can do this, he created all and established the standards). The Father’s standards are the STANDARD!. We stray when we as humans throw our own definition of “evil” into the mix or interpret what we believe is God’s will. Live by God’s simplified standards and uniformity will prevail. What is it with the atheist community? Do they have a power struggle issue? Don’t like authority figures? Problems with authority seems to be the biggest issue. They want to believe they control their destiny. Yet, this really isn’t an issue at all, in fact they do control their own destiny (freewill from God). Accept or decline. How hard is it? I think they are afraid of the not accepting Christ part (eternal damnation). So to compensate (make themselves feel good about denying the exsistance of God and the whole hell fire scenerio), just say their is no god or higher intelligence (no pressure, I can do what I want at last). I will say that I don’t push my faith on people (it would be defeating the intent of Christ’s sacrifice and the God given gift of free will), yet atheist seem to impose their will to restrict Christianity every chance they can get. By free will God throws it back in your court (Accept my son or decline). No excuses.

Take Care and May God Bless!

Ed

 

[StrawberryJam]

WOW. The evil one has you fooled good. See, what happens when a person deems something evil on his own accord as compared to using God’s guidelines. Yes, God in the Old Testament punished those who were evil (he can do this, he created all and established the standards). The Father’s standards are the STANDARD!. We stray when we as humans throw our own definition of “evil” into the mix or interpret what we believe is God’s will. Live by God’s simplified standards and uniformity will prevail. What is it with the atheist community? Do they have a power struggle issue? Don’t like authority figures? Problems with authority seems to be the biggest issue. They want to believe they control their destiny. Yet, this really isn’t an issue at all, in fact they do control their own destiny (freewill from God). Accept or decline. How hard is it? I think they are afraid of the not accepting Christ part (eternal damnation). So to compensate (make themselves feel good about denying the exsistance of God and the whole hell fire scenerio), just say their is no god or higher intelligence (no pressure, I can do what I want at last). I will say that I don’t push my faith on people (it would be defeating the intent of Christ’s sacrifice and the God given gift of free will), yet atheist seem to impose their will to restrict Christianity every chance they can get. By free will God throws it back in your court (Accept my son or decline). No excuses.

Take Care and May God Bless!

Ed

Ed, no offense, but have you read what you call the old testament ever?

I can not believe you did, reading this post.

Tell me why Lot slept with not one, but two of his daughters?

 

[bpbasilphx]

Evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins said in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question

Only if you believe there is no absolute standard for morality.

And if you reject the Bible (as he does a few sentences later), what objective moral standard do you have?

 

[latin_rite]

Hm, I’m not a Dawkins fan but . . . . there is a context to it, isn’t there?

What he went on to say was words to the effect of ‘whatever it is, it isn’t the Bible’.

In other words, he was saying something like “It’s interesting to contemplate what it is that tells us that Hitler was wrong, whatever it is it isn’t the Bible.”

Dawkins is such an easy target that quotes taken out of context to say things like ‘Dawkins supports Hitler’ are a bit pathetic really.

What he is saying is the bible doesn’t tell us what hitler did was wrong. which i would venture is false. But anyway…He is allso admitting that atheist have no understanding of morals or sence of wrong or right. . He is saying that hitler is wrong but he doesn’t know why. And if he cant understand how hitler was wrong. Then he must by his way of rational thinking admitt that he thinks hitler may have been right. the man is a failed scientist who knows this so he is just trying to leave his mark on the world in some way. I think deep down he is a lonely and frigthend little man. who has a dreaded sence of mortality

 

[Dokimas]

I believe that “evil” exists only as a value judgment in the minds of people. Certainly there are things that individuals judge to be “evil.” But I’m saying that “evil” doesn’t exist apart from minds that judge things. It’s not “out there” in the world: nothing is evil in and of itself.

I’m not sure how much clearer I can be.

Sounds like evolution has done us a disservice giving us a conscience that believes in something that is false.

 

[Dokimas]

Dawkins and Hitchens and the others all believe in some kind of morality, which presents all kinds of problems for them. I’m a different kind of thinker – I’m a moral nihilist. I do not believe that moral statements carry any truth value. Moral statements, to me, are value judgments. They reflect nothing more than the values of the person making the statement, not objective truths about the universe.

I have no problem condemning Hitler on the basis of my values – which come from my natural inborn inclinations, my reason, my upbringing, my social condition, the influence of tradition, the influence of life experiences and probably a lot of other sources of which I’m not aware.

I imagine that a Neo-Nazi would make a very different value judgment, and my values would lead me to condemn Neo-Nazis, too.

What’s interesting is that the people who have carried out atrocities in the world have been, for the most part, moral realists. The Nazis, for example, certainly believed that they were doing good (or, at least, something for the “greater good” of the country). It’s the belief in good, the belief in morality, that is most often used to justify atrocity.

Would you rather live in Germany in the 20’s-40, the country you now live in or in a town near another town run by cannibals? If in the 20’s Germany, would you be a Nazis; if in a town near cannibals, would you join them?

 

[kalt]

For doing things to kids that I don’t approve of adults doing.

I told you, I don’t care what they think.

Yep.

I don’t have an objective code of food that explains my dislike of brussel sprouts, either. But I dislike them, so I abstain from eating them. I similarly dislike a society where adults are free to have sex with kids, so I favor laws that lock those people up.

Not true. There are atheists who believe there is objective morality; I’ve heard some of them argue for it on philosophical grounds. I disagree with them, but they certainly exist. In fact, I’d wager that most atheists believe in objective morality.

I’m a member of society. And in this society, the vast, vast majority of people don’t want a society where adults can have sex with kids. I’m in good company, it looks like.

Society gets to punish people who violate societal codes and laws. We don’t need any magical “authority” – society is its own authority. Who’s going to stop society? You?

You seriously need to sit down and think about this. There’s no contradiction between saying that there is no objective “good” and “bad” and also saying, “I prefer a society where X is the law because that’s the way my values are.”

Well, whether society has “authority” or not (whatever that means), society does impose its values on people.

Maybe this will help: moral codes tend to be codifications of values. The reason that having sex with children is considered immoral is because the vast majority of people have no desire whatsoever to do it. It’s not like most people are dying to have sex with kids and they’re held back by their moral code. It’s just that most people don’t want to do it – it’s not something their values support.

When the community discovers someone doing it, the community wants to punish that individual because it wants its society not to contain that act.

There’s absolutely nothing here that requires “moral codes” or “authority” or any of the other nonsense your post is talking about. You seriously need to wake up.

LOL, so majority rules. And anything the majority says is bad, is bad. By that logic, setting the slaves free was a bad thing. Being able to buy them was a good thing.

Society needs no authority to punish citizens? You’ve gone way off the track now.

Your argument has completely fallen apart, and you can’t defend it, obviously.

 

[StrawberryJam]

LOL, so majority rules. And anything the majority says is bad, is bad. By that logic, setting the slaves free was a bad thing. Being able to buy them was a good thing.

Society needs no authority to punish citizens? You’ve gone way off the track now.

Your argument has completely fallen apart, and you can’t defend it, obviously.

You God had no problem with slavery. Whatever are you talking about now?

 

[josie_L]

You God had no problem with slavery. Whatever are you talking about now?

The slavery which was practiced for example by the Jews was not chattel slavery (remember the Jews were saved from such a horrible existence), it is more akin to indentured servitude (which is not evil in and of itself especially since jobs were not aplenty and being a slave was the difference between having food in your tummy and a roof over your head or starvation and prostitution).

 

[StrawberryJam]

The slavery which was practiced for example by the Jews was not chattel slavery (remember the Jews were saved from such a horrible existence), it is more akin to indentured servitude (which is not evil in and of itself especially since jobs were not aplenty and being a slave was the difference between having food in your tummy and a roof over your head or starvation and prostitution).

Now, take this snip from your post and see how I can make this sound like an argument for pro deathers.

I happen to be pro life, but reading this post made me laugh out loud.

 

[josie_L]

Now, take this snip from your post and see how I can make this sound like an argument for pro deathers.

I happen to be pro life, but reading this post made me laugh out loud.

I was trying to relay that slavery as it was practiced by the Jews was not chattel slavery, and it was in fact necessary for the times because people had very few opportunites (especially women and children) to provide for themselves.

p.s. I am pro-life myself, but abortion and euthanasia are not necessary (in other words we have the liberty/choice to support these institutions).

 

[crazzeto]

You cant really blame Dawkins, you actually have to give him brownie points on his complete honesty. Dawkins was referring to hitler killing those millions of people in the gas chambers and ovens. As I said before in Atheism, morality is an illusion and it all depends on who is in power. MY jaw nearly dropped to the floor when he made that statement.

Evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins said in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question

This is exactly a point I was making in the “What’s Athiesm’s greatest weakness” thread in apologetics forums. Honestly I dont’ see what’s so shocking about this too you, if there wasn’t a God (thankfully, there is), then one must really question whether Hilter was wrong. And ultimatly, the answer to that question is actually “nope, there was nothing wrong about what Hitler did”. I hate to say it, but that’s exactly true, exactly right. If there’s no God, then there are aboslutly no human rights what so ever. Our rights are derived from the fact that we are made in the image of God, we as human animals have no inherant dignity about us in and of our selves. It’s the fact that we were made in Gods image, later remade in Jesus’s image which gives us dignaty, and rights.

So take note athiests, you have no rights. Just your own personal opinion, but if someone else has a gun and a different opinion your opinion is going to go right out of the window.

 

[kalt]

You God had no problem with slavery. Whatever are you talking about now?

What do you know about the slavery as practiced then and there? How does that compare to the form of slavery practiced in the US?

You talk about “values”. Can you explain where these values come from? How you decide what values you will hold?

You talked about being against child molestation. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?

 

[AntiTheist]

LOL, so majority rules.

In matters of social norms, of course. The majority determines social norms, by definition.

And anything the majority says is bad, is bad.

No. There’s no good or bad about it.

By that logic, setting the slaves free was a bad thing.

Again, there’s no good or bad about it. The emancipation proclamation was largely a calculated political move at the start of the Civil War, which was fought over keeping the union together, not over slavery.

As others have noted, your god approved of slavery, according to the Old Testament. It’s not really relevant what “kind” of slavery it was – there were also plenty of nice slave owners in the 19th century who treated their slaves well. There were, in fact, educated slaves who defended the institution of slavery on the grounds that it was good for slaves, saved them from the savagery of their native countries, exposed them to Christianity, etc. Many slave owners justified slavery on religious grounds as well.

It just goes to show you how useless things like “morality” are. If some 19th century slaves and slave-owners could argue that slavery is “good” on the basis of the Bible, then the word “good” is utterly meaningless. Far better to be honest and say, as I do, that I don’t like slavery and that I’m glad it doesn’t exist any more. I don’t need some supernatural or “objectively moral” reason for feeling the way that I do.

 

[AntiTheist]

You talk about “values”. Can you explain where these values come from? How you decide what values you will hold?

Values come from numerous places. Some are decided by the reason; some are inborn (a natural biological drive towards empathy, similar to what we see in social animals); many are the result of social training; many are the result of internalizing the norms of those around us; and other values probably come from other sources.

“Values” aren’t usually things that we wake up and decide upon, but they are subject to a lot of influences over time.

You talked about being against child molestation. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?

My values lead me to oppose it. If your values are different on this subject, I’m going to keep my distance from you.

 

[kalt]

In matters of social norms, of course. The majority determines social norms, by definition.

No. There’s no good or bad about it.

Again, there’s no good or bad about it. The emancipation proclamation was largely a calculated political move at the start of the Civil War, which was fought over keeping the union together, not over slavery.

As others have noted, your god approved of slavery, according to the Old Testament. It’s not really relevant what “kind” of slavery it was – there were also plenty of nice slave owners in the 19th century who treated their slaves well. There were, in fact, educated slaves who defended the institution of slavery on the grounds that it was good for slaves, saved them from the savagery of their native countries, exposed them to Christianity, etc. Many slave owners justified slavery on religious grounds as well.

It just goes to show you how useless things like “morality” are. If some 19th century slaves and slave-owners could argue that slavery is “good” on the basis of the Bible, then the word “good” is utterly meaningless. Far better to be honest and say, as I do, that I don’t like slavery and that I’m glad it doesn’t exist any more. I don’t need some supernatural or “objectively moral” reason for feeling the way that I do.

“Nice” slave owners in the US? Oh, you mean those guys who didn’t happen to beat their slaves senseless.

Anyone can argue that their bad behavior is supported by the Bible (or any other document or code)–doens’t mean their interpretation is correct.

We were talking about laws. Laws aren’t determined by a majority rule. If that were the case, slavery wouldn’t have ended when and how it did.

And how do we decide what should be law? You say that what you dislike should be illegal and punishable. Why should your personal dislikes determine law? What are you basing these dilikes on? And why should society adopt your personal preferences as law?

You talk about values, but you’ve yet to explain why your values (apparently picked up through osmosis with no particular need for a moral determination of these values’ worth) should determine law? The fact that many others agree with you is irrelevant. Many people agree today that slavery wasn’t all bad (a view you promote here) and that prostitution should be legalized. Some even agree that having sex with children is a good thing.

If nothing is good or bad, then sex with children is neither good nor bad. So why should it be illegal? Why should there be a law against something that is neither good nor bad? (Remembering that “hurt” is as subjective an idea as any other idea that an individual can hold.)