Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: Hitler: Why we need a Science of Morality
Message-ID: <1186@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 15-May-86 19:19:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.1186
Posted: Thu May 15 19:19:48 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 20-May-86 05:34:32 EDT
References: <534@bu-cs.UUCP> <13627@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <534@brl-smoke.ARPA> <414@ccird1.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 68

In article <414@ccird1.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes:
>
>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".

	The most fundamental problem with Social Darwinism goes even
deeper than this. The principles of natural selection simply are not
applicable to societies or to *learned* behavior. Such things are
simply not sufficiently *heritable* to be subject to selection. Then
there is the problem of analysis, fitness *cannot* be determined a
priori from general principles, it *must* be determined a posteriori,
by measurement of results. This precludes *any* method of judging
human races on the basis of "fitness".
>
>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...
>
	These ar not all axioms, several of them follow from others in
the list and are thus corollaries. The minimal list would come out:

The life of the individual is of great value.
Power corrupts, therefore distribute the power.
Mutual co-operation is good.

all the others follow from these three.
>
>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.
>
These reduce to:

The well-being of the people as a whole(the common good) is important.
Order and efficiency are of prime importance.
Results are more important than means.

-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ??