Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!ccird1!rb
From: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: Hitler: Why we need a Science of Morality
Message-ID: <414@ccird1.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 11-May-86 05:00:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccird1.414
Posted: Sun May 11 05:00:41 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 14-May-86 05:38:38 EDT
References: <534@bu-cs.UUCP> <13627@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <534@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Organization: CCI Rochester Development, Rochester NY
Lines: 64
Summary: Axioms in social science?

In article <534@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.ARPA writes:
>I better watch out; Tom Tedrick and I may end up agreeing
>on something..
>
>I too don't think that the Nazis could be considered
>"scientific".  That was a case of borrowing the prestige
>of science to rationalize unscientific ideas.

Actually, Nazism was a form of socio-economic Darwinism, and
if the axioms on which it was founded were correct, would have
been quite logical.  Hitler et. al. attempted to define "the fittest"
of the human species, both in terms of physical and social patterns.
Yet by an equally valid set of axioms, the very people he tried to
exterminate (Jews), were the "fittest".

Unfortunately, virtually every attempt at such "Social Darwinism" for
"scientific morality" has the main defect of "vanity".

>Seems to me that a true science of morality requires
>correct identification of the essential nature and
>requirements of human beings first.

These would be wonderful axioms of Anglo-American societies.

freedom is good.
people should not starve.
leaders should serve the people.
Absolute power corrupts abolutely, therefore distribute the power.
Co-operation is good.
Central leadership is bad.
Two parties are good.
One party is bad.
Too many parties is bad.
Do unto others...


An equally strong argument has been used in another type of society.

People should not starve.
The state should control distribution of the wealth.
Leaders should be obeyed.
Co-operation with leaders is good.
Weak, diluted leadership is inefficient.
Aggression is good, and necessary to survival.
One party is good.
Too many parties is bad.
Do unto others before they do unto you.
Extremism for the sake of the common good is no vice.


Strangely enough, in Latin America, 1930's Germany, and several other
places throughout history, the second model has replaced the first.
At other times, the first has replaced the second.  Both replacements
have had instances of failure and success.

Socio-economic and "scientific morality" is like deciding that two
legged creatures are "more fit" than four legged ones, and chopping
off the front legs of all 4 legged creatures.  Without both types,
the ecological balance would be a shambles.

Indeed, there is the problem of situational morality.  In fact,
there are no hard rules.  Any rule, applied in the wrong situation,
can lead to a disaster.  Perhaps the most important factor in human
evolution is flexibility.