Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!gatech!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!ucbvax!wisdom.BITNET!eyal
From: eyal@wisdom.BITNET (Eyal mozes)
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: Hitler: Why we need a Science of Morality
Message-ID: <8605161507.AA14531@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Fri, 16-May-86 11:08:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8605161507.AA14531
Posted: Fri May 16 11:08:18 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 19-May-86 00:51:43 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 116

Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: Hitler: Why we Need a Science of Morality
Expires:
References:
Sender:
Reply-To: eyal@wisdom.UUCP (Eyal mozes)
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Weizman Institute of Science, Dept. of Mathematics
Keywords:

I have reason to believe that my previous posting of this message was
lost on the way to the gateway, so I'm reposting it. I apologize if I
made a mistake and you get two copies of the same message.

> >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.

Do these two sets of "axioms" look like an identification of the
essential nature and requirements of human beings?

Obviously, these are not axioms; these are judgments in the field of
political theory, and they are based on more basic judgments in ethics,
which are in turn based on identifications of the essential nature and
requirements of man, which are in turn based on axioms about the nature
of reality.

The most basic question about the nature of man is: is man a rational
being; is reason his only means of gaining knowledge and his basic
means of survival? The Nazi's position on this subject was clear; the
writings and speeches of Hitler and other Nazis are full of attacks on
reason, rationality and objectivity, calls for relying on faith and
instincts, and statements to the effect that no principle is absolute,
that ideas must not be judged by such abstract standards as logic and
facts but must be chosen flexibly by their utility in any particular
situation. Logic, particularly, was a special target of the Nazi's
attacks; their doctrine of "polylogism" (adapted from the Marxists)
held that logic is subjective, that there is a different logic for
every race; and while no Nazi ever gave any indication of the nature of
Aryan logical principles, they did state emphatically that Aristotle
was not an Aryan. And, of course, the Nazis didn't just preach
rejecting reason and logic; their practice made it clear that they
really meant it.

If you reject the possibility of a rational ethics, then people must
turn for guidance to their emotions (which they may call "faith",
"insticts", "revelation", or anything but reason), and when their
emotions aren't guided by reason, nothing prevents them from following
the Fuhrer; differences can't be settled by reason, so the only
remaining means is force; and if you also demand an "ecological
balance" between freedom and dictatorship, thus disarming those who
would fight for their freedom, the result will be Hitler or Stalin.

To anyone seriously interested in understanding the roots of Nazism,
and in finding the antidote necessary for preventing its return, I
strongly recommend the book "The Ominous Parallels" by Leonard
Peikoff.

The only hope for civilization, and the only weapon against a return of
Nazism, is a science of morality, an ethics based on facts, on a
correct identification of man's nature - including the role of reason
in man's life - and on logic, and a political theory based on such an
ethics.

Well, such a science exists already, in the philosophy of Objectivism.
If you are interested in a real science of morality, then read the
works of Ayn Rand; you can start either with her novels, particularly
Atlas Shrugged (which is both a great novel in its own right and the
best overall introduction to her philosophy), or with her essay "The
Objectivist Ethics", reprinted in her book "The Virtue of
Selfishness".

        Eyal Mozes

        BITNET:                         eyal@wisdom
        CSNET and ARPA:                 eyal%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA
        UUCP:                           ..!ucbvax!eyal%wisdom.bitnet