Hitler knew he was immoral

[Mr.Badham]

If it could be proved that Hitler knew what he was doing was immoral, would it change any theist's mind about "Atheist Morality"?

What about Stalin, Mussolini and Pol Pot?

If it could be proven that these four knew what they were doing was not moral, would this end the theist claim that Atheists are somehow less moral?

As it stands, I'm not interested in the definitions of proof or morality.

This post is for anyone who uses Hitler and his ilk as "proof" that Atheists are less "moral". If Hitler knows what's moral, but simply chooses to ignore it, does that say anything about morality?

[Mr.Badham]

[Replying to Sydney Carton]

First of all, I don't know why you think you can ask me a question on my thread without answering my question first.

I take you are not a victim of the holocaust. Anyone who claims they cannot understand why we consider the Nazis immoral is either lying or..... not particularily intelligent.
Which one are you? Maybe answer both my questions before you ask another.

[Mr.Badham]

The argument suggests that Hitler did what he did because his morality was subjective. They suggest that when Atheists are in charge, Hilocausts are inevitable. These arguments only work if people never knowingly behaved immorally.

[Bust Nak]

I think the point to be made about Hitler is that atheists tend to always blame religion for everything, and Hitler is a prime example of how evil acts can have more to do with other things...

It's not so much that religion is to be blamed for everything, it's just that the other things that we could blame evil for, can be understood.

I can relate to making your side better off at the expense of others; I can understand why one would go to war for land grab. There is a point to such wars.
I cannot relate to harming others for differences in religious belief; I cannot understand why one would go to war for religion. There is no point and is a complete waste.

[Sydney Carton]

[Replying to post 20 by Bust Nak]

Dear 'Bust Nak':

It doesn't matter if animals (including humans) WANT justification, it only matters if they ARE justified. No animal in, what we refer to as, "nature" requires justification. If humans are just another animal we require as much justification as any other animal; which is none. Your statement that some animals WANT justification is irrelevant to them actually being justified.

What is your definition of a "moral agent"? Which animal, according to your personal belief, is a moral agent? What gives you (or anyone) the authority to dictate which animal is responsible for morality? You're making an assumption based on personal belief and applying that belief to everyone ( and every species) across the board; now, you're practicing religion.

You made the assertion that what makes us (humans) "better" than any other animal is because because you are a human. This statement is beyond the height of vanity, it is egotism in its purest form. You also didn't have any other reason why humans are intrinsically better than any other animal. At least you were honest enough to admit that your ideas on this come from yourself (your personal belief) rather than any pure, logical analysis of the situation.

You said that "we have the power, not the right" to impose our will. In evolutionary terms, power equals right. It always has. Why do you suppose some animals prey on others? Because they CAN. This is the way of the world. It's brutal and some weak stomached people would rather ignore this but it is the way of life. Any animal only has the right to do what it can do. When a stronger animal preys on a weaker one...Well, if the weaker one had been stronger, it would still be alive. What gives you (or anything else) the RIGHT to exist is your ability to stay alive, not your ability to appeal to some abstract principle that is undefinable. I can't see the deer appealing to a cougar's sense of morality just before the cougar rips its guts out. Ridiculous.

You say you would call a monkey "immoral". With this, and with everything else, you make the claim to be able to define morality. I would be interested in hearing what you base your definition of morality on. There is no room for morality in evolution. There is only "survival of the fittest". You may do whatever it takes to survive, even if this means forming temporary alliances with other animals, but this still only addresses pure SURVIVAL, not morality.

[Bust Nak]

It doesn't matter if animals (including humans) WANT justification, it only matters if they ARE justified. No animal in, what we refer to as, "nature" requires justification. If humans are just another animal we require as much justification as any other animal; which is none. Your statement that some animals WANT justification is irrelevant to them actually being justified.

Well, we are part of nature, so technically nature, in parts requires justification. Because there is a wide varity of animals, that some animal does not require justification, doesn't mean no animals requires justification.

What is your definition of a "moral agent"? Which animal, according to your personal belief, is a moral agent?

Those conscious creations that understand the concept of right and wrong.

What gives you (or anyone) the authority to dictate which animal is responsible for morality?

Don't need any authority for that, anymore than I need authority to say, measure the length of a pen. You need a ruler to do that, not authority.

You're making an assumption based on personal belief and applying that belief to everyone ( and every species) across the board; now, you're practicing religion.

I would argue that it is way more that just personal belief, but personal belief based on empirical evidence and scientific knowledge regarding the brain, as well as philosophical arguments regarding moral.

You made the assertion that what makes us (humans) "better" than any other animal is because because you are a human. This statement is beyond the height of vanity, it is egotism in its purest form.

Close enough. What is better is a matter of opinion.

You also didn't have any other reason why humans are intrinsically better than any other animal.

Correct, because we are not intrinsically better than any animal.

At least you were honest enough to admit that your ideas on this come from yourself (your personal belief) rather than any pure, logical analysis of the situation.

Well, you cannot argue for taste. I would ask though what exactly is it that stop personal ideas from being logical or analytical.

You said that "we have the power, not the right" to impose our will. In evolutionary terms, power equals right. It always has.

More accurate to state that rights are always backed by power. But that's close enough.

Why do you suppose some animals prey on others? Because they CAN. This is the way of the world. It's brutal and some weak stomached people would rather ignore this but it is the way of life. Any animal only has the right to do what it can do. When a stronger animal preys on a weaker one...Well, if the weaker one had been stronger, it would still be alive. What gives you (or anything else) the RIGHT to exist is your ability to stay alive, not your ability to appeal to some abstract principle that is undefinable.

Correct, and this is exactly what we observe. Which indicated that our model of the world is accurate.

I can't see the deer appealing to a cougar's sense of morality just before the cougar rips its guts out. Ridiculous.

Which is why I use the words such as "some" and "exceptions."

You say you would call a monkey "immoral". With this, and with everything else, you make the claim to be able to define morality. I would be interested in hearing what you base your definition of morality on.

The common understand of morality, as outline by dictionaries, along the lines of the principle of right and wrong.

There is no room for morality in evolution. There is only "survival of the fittest". You may do whatever it takes to survive, even if this means forming temporary alliances with other animals, but this still only addresses pure SURVIVAL, not morality.

They aren't mutually excusive at all. Morality is an evolved trait, a subset of "survival of the fittest."

[Sydney Carton]

[Replying to post 25 by Bust Nak]

Bust Nak. You need to look up the definition of morality. You seem to have absolutely no concept of the idea.

You asserted that some parts of nature do require justification but stopped at that. When you make that kind of outrageous claim, you better be able to back it up; which you haven't. I ask again? Why does ANY animal require justification for anything? Just because there are a wide variety of animals does not negate the fact that they are ALL ANIMALS. So, yes if you're going to operate under the pretense of a justification it either applies to all, or none. Stop riding the fence and pick one.

You said that "conscious creations" understand the difference between right and wrong. One: you refer to animals as creations, which imply a Creator (in your own words). Two: you imply that no animal, other than your own species, is capable of "consciousness". According to evolution, all animals are capable of "consciousness" therefore all animals (according to your definition) are subject to morality of some kind, but since we don't find this in nature, this claim is absurd. Again, you have nothing to back it up. Three: the concept of "right and wrong" are absent in nature (including human survival). Either we have the right to impose our will as any other animal, or we're not an animal, but a spiritual being beholden to morality as dictated by a metaphysical source. Again, stop riding the fence and pick one.

Your example of "not needing authority to measure a pen" is laughable. I literally laughed out loud at the foolishness of such an irrelevant example. A 12" ruler remains a 12" ruler no matter who is using it to measure. This is a standard imposed by, and universally accepted by, people until it isn't. A human (or any other animal) can set a standard and a human (or any other animal) can change that standard. That's what we call a PRINCIPLE. It's subject to change at any time. Can you say "the metric system?" Morality is a universal standard that is unwavering no matter who believes in it, or who doesn't, no matter how many people believe in it, or don't. If morality were merely a matter of popular opinion then we would still have slaves today since every civilization throughout history have had slaves. The only reason we (or anyone ever) did away with slavery is because it violated a higher, unwavering moral Law. If morality were merely a principle mandated by the powers that be, then slavery is justifiable. But, it isn't under any circumstances. All that being said you STILL have offered no evidence as to what gives you, or anyone the right to impose your personal standard over all animals. Unless...you're going to side with me and agree that you have the right only because you belong to the "strongest" species. In which case those strongest within that species also, logically, have the right to impose their will over weaker animals (even among their own species).

You "would argue that this is more than just a personal belief" and then strut philosophy as an example of empirical evidence? Too cute. Philosophy is little more than mental masturbation, real science requires testing, actual data. Yes, everything you have been saying is based on your personal belief. As I said, you're practicing religion. The fact that you claim philosophy as the lynchpin of your argument proves this.

You say that we (humans) are "responsible for morality" because we are "conscious", but then you make the claim that we (humans) are no better than any other animal. Which is it? Again, get off the fence. If you can't make up your mind about what you believe how can you argue for any point.


You insist that some things are "wrong" regardless of power, but then you concede that power equals pure authority over those weaker. You agree that stronger animals will prey on weaker ones for any reason that offers the stronger animal an advantage. Morality has no place in this equation. Once again, get off the fence. Also, once again, if you keep contradicting your own arguments how can anything you say be considered reliable, much less credible?

The only thing that you have remained consistent on is your sense of vanity.

[Bust Nak]

Bust Nak. You need to look up the definition of morality. You seem to have absolutely no concept of the idea.

What made you think that I have absolutely no concept of morality as defined as principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour? Especially after I pointed out the definition in the very post you are replying to?

You asserted that some parts of nature do require justification but stopped at that. When you make that kind of outrageous claim, you better be able to back it up; which you haven't.

Did you miss that part where I gave you the trivial example of humanity requring justication for our actions?

I ask again? Why does ANY animal require justification for anything?

Because some animals are biologically wired to demand justification.

Just because there are a wide variety of animals does not negate the fact that they are ALL ANIMALS.

Sure, I have not argued otherwise.

So, yes if you're going to operate under the pretense of a justification it either applies to all, or none. Stop riding the fence and pick one.

That does not follow and trivially so. So what if we are all animals, some are smart and some are not. You would no more demand that we (all animals) to understand right and wrong, than you would demand all plants to grow edible fruit.

You said that "conscious creations" understand the difference between right and wrong. One: you refer to animals as creations, which imply a Creator (in your own words).

Typo. I meant to type creatures.

Two: you imply that no animal, other than your own species, is capable of "consciousness".

I implied no such thing. I have no idea why you'd accuse me of that when I explicitly stated that some monkeys are smart enough to be moral agents.

According to evolution, all animals are capable of "consciousness" therefore all animals (according to your definition) are subject to morality of some kind, but since we don't find this in nature, this claim is absurd. Again, you have nothing to back it up.

What about the part about understanding good and evil? I said conscious AND understanding, didn't I?

Three: the concept of "right and wrong" are absent in nature (including human survival).

That's trivially false by counter-example. Again, I point to humanity. Right and wrong is not absent in human and we are part of nature.

Either we have the right to impose our will as any other animal, or we're not an animal but a spiritual being beholden to morality as dictated by a metaphysical source. Again, stop riding the fence and pick one.

Again, I point out that rights have to be backed by power, and we DO have the power to impose our will as any other animal. I did pick a side.

Your example of "not needing authority to measure a pen" is laughable. I literally laughed out loud at the foolishness of such an irrelevant example. A 12" ruler remains a 12" ruler no matter who is using it to measure.

Well, at least you seem to agree that one does not need authority to measure a pen. Are you suggesting that the smartness of an animal will NOT necessarily remain the same, depending who is doing the measuring? If not, then what's so funny with suggesting that one does not needing authority to measure the smartness of an animal?

This is a standard imposed by, and universally accepted by, people until it isn't. A human (or any other animal) can set a standard and a human (or any other animal) can change that standard. That's what we call a PRINCIPLE. It's subject to change at any time. Can you say "the metric system?"

I don't disagree. Standard are matter of convention. Although I find it odd that you would describe something subject to change as a principle.

Morality is a universal standard that is unwavering no matter who believes in it, or who doesn't, no matter how many people believe in it, or don't.

That's what objectivists like to claim anyway, the support of which is lacking.

If morality were merely a matter of popular opinion then we would still have slaves today since every civilization throughout history have had slaves.

But we do. Slavery, and I don't mean employment, is still a problem around the world. But that's beside the point...

The only reason we (or anyone ever) did away with slavery is because it violated a higher, unwavering moral Law.

I can offer you another reason: the other reason why we did away with slavery is because it has fallen out of favor in popular opinion.

In short, the conclusion that slaves would still be popular today does not follow from the premise that every civilization had slaves. Opinion can and often changes. It's one of defining aspect of opinion.

If morality were merely a principle mandated by the powers that be, then slavery is justifiable. But, it isn't under any circumstances.

Other disagree. History is not on your side here. It was justifiable according to many people, some even appealed to the Bible to justify it.

You use the word "justifiable" to mean something along the lines of "seems reasonable to you personally." Do you see how subjective that is? What seems reasonable to you may not be reasonable to another. Nothing can be reasonable in isolation, only reasonable is only coherient in the context of reasonable to someone.

All that being said you STILL have offered no evidence as to what gives you, or anyone the right to impose your personal standard over all animals. Unless...you're going to side with me and agree that you have the right only because you belong to the "strongest" species.

Technically, it's your wording I objected to, not the concept. I even said you were "close enough" above. I've clearly stated that we have the power to impose our will, rights is what people appeal to when they lack immediate power. "You have no right to do that" translates to "I may not be able to stop you but you will regret it."

In which case those strongest within that species also, logically, have the right to impose their will over weaker animals (even among their own species).

That is unless the physically weaker animals, bound together (to become evolutionary stronger) to oppose the physically strongest animals.

You "would argue that this is more than just a personal belief" and then strut philosophy as an example of empirical evidence? Too cute. Philosophy is little more than mental masturbation, real science requires testing, actual data.

The record would show that I didn't say anything of the sort. I said I had the backing of philosophy PLUS I have empirical evidence.

Yes, everything you have been saying is based on your personal belief.

All beliefs are personal. That's hardly an point against my view.

As I said, you're practicing religion. The fact that you claim philosophy as the lynchpin of your argument proves this.

And you would be wrong. I place a great deal of important on empirical evidence when I form my beliefs.

You say that we (humans) are "responsible for morality" because we are "conscious", but then you make the claim that we (humans) are no better than any other animal. Which is it? Again, get off the fence.

I said no such thing. Come on. Have I or have I not said humans are better than other animals? You even commented on my vanity for saying humans are better, remember?

You insist that some things are "wrong" regardless of power, but then you concede that power equals pure authority over those weaker.

And that is problematic because? Are you suggesting that what we have the authority to do, is always the right thing to do? If not then where is the contradiction for saying somethings are wrong even if someone has the power to impose it on the weak?

You agree that stronger animals will prey on weaker ones for any reason that offers the stronger animal an advantage.

With the caveat that by stronger, I meant evolutionary fitter, not physically stronger.

Morality has no place in this equation. Once again, get off the fence.

And what seems to be the problem here? Are you suggesting that what the stronger animal would do, is always the right thing to do? If not then where is the contradiction for saying somethings are wrong even if it is to the advantage of the stronger animal?

Also, once again, if you keep contradicting your own arguments how can anything you say be considered reliable, much less credible?

Of course. Which is why I never contradict myself.

The only thing that you have remained consistent on is your sense of vanity.

Alternatively, I have remained consistent through out the debate and your objection says a lot more about you than it does me.

[Mr.Badham]

[Replying to Sydney Carton]

I find it telling that you said, "If the powers that be say slavery is okay, that it is."

The point of the thread is that the powers that be, will say many things. It is the followers that must decide for themselves what rules they should or should not follow.

As for your point about "Morality not existing in nature", I think you need to reconsider a few things about that point;
1. Wolves don't eat wolves. Why not? Could that be considered a form of morality? Maybe you could call it ethics? Either way, it says something about wolf culture.

2. Just because it doesn't exist in nature doesn't mean it can't exist for humans. Take economics. I wouldn't call Chimpanzees poor just cause they don't have any money. Economics is something that exists for humans and humans alone... but it exists none the less. And it's entirely made up. Like morality!!! It has rules and can be measured. There are good and bad ways of dealing with it, and sometimes people choose the bad ways for selfish reasons.

[TheThinWhiteDuke]

Hitler really did think what he did for Germany was not wrong.

But Hitler did know he was wrong with the concentration camps. Why do you think he tried to cover it all up. He was so desperate to erase all concentration camps, when he knew that the allied forces came close to conquer Germany. But never had the time, and most camp soldiers just fled from scene.

Also: 15 leading officials of the Nazi state met at a villa in Wannsee, a suburb of Berlin, to discuss the 'Final solution of the Jewish Question'. and this was done secretly.

The answer is yes, Hitler knew he was immoral.