Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!bu-cs!bzs
From: bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion,net.sci
Subject: Re: Hitler: Why we need a Science of Morality
Message-ID: <534@bu-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 3-May-86 17:22:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: bu-cs.534
Posted: Sat May  3 17:22:38 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 8-May-86 03:52:39 EDT
Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci.
Lines: 43
Xref: linus net.philosophy:4838 net.religion:9749 net.sci:483


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