Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!tedrick From: tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion,net.sci Subject: Re: Hitler: Why we need a Science of Morality Message-ID: <13552@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Thu, 1-May-86 18:22:08 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.13552 Posted: Thu May 1 18:22:08 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 3-May-86 18:08:38 EDT References: <576@umich.UUCP> <13042@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Tom Tedrick) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 298 Xref: watmath net.philosophy:5212 net.religion:10048 net.sci:783 Summary: I now proceed to saw off the limb I sit on :-) In article <237@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: 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.