Store up for yourselves treasures in Heaven
where moth and rust cannot destroy and thieves cannot break in and steal

Monday, April 19, 2010

The 1.6% Solution

1.6% of the North American population has no moral base from which to disagree, or for many, even the inclination to disagree with the person who said,

“ If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile. But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure. He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.”

This 1.6% of the population has preferences, likes and dislikes, but it has no moral base from which to judge one behaviour right and another wrong. These people must cling to their implausible position or see their world view collapse.


  1. Mein Kampf is often quote mined to suggest that Hitler was an adherent of Darwinian theory. Similarly, with its references to God and the guiding will of Nature, it has sometimes been quote mined by atheist websites to prove that Hitler was a creationist. In fact Hitler's views on nature seem to be a mixture of the two philosophies, and he made some rather muddled statements, confusingly mixing the two concepts. For example, in regard to marriage, and avoiding miscegenated marriages, he stated that:
    “The State should consecrate it as an institution which is called upon to produce creatures made in the likeness of the Lord and not create monsters that are a mixture of man and ape.”
    Based on comments like this, Hitler seems to have believed that humanity, and especially the Aryan race, had evolved to become the likeness of God (rather than being created initially in God's image), while other races were closer to humanity's evolutionary ancestors. His comments citing apes or monkeys as the ancestors of humans imply that he believed some creatures had stopped evolving while others evolved on from them. This would account to some extent for his hierarchical conception of higher and lower orders of creatures, and for his belief that some races of humans were more evolved than others. This is, however, a false understanding of the theory of evolution as upheld by biologists of Hitler's time as well as our own.

  2. Wow, Godwin's Law comes into play in an initial post, before the first comment. I am impressed, Thesauros.

  3. Hitler was clearly Christian using Christian people.

  4. The moral objectivity, and therefore advantage, in religious ideology is on hold, pending we first establish proof of his existance. A theist cannot claim the moral advantage until he can succesfully prove that his or her morals were not established in the same manner as otherwise, without god. If it turns out that man made god, then explain to me how the objectivity of gods law, survives beyond those morals you so enthusiastically call "man made.". Define the fine line between objective morality and subjective morality without summoning unestablished assumptions lacking qualifying criteria to assume your contention valid. You put the wagon before the horse, makarios.

  5. Objective morality is in doubt only until the moment arrives when someone does something wrong to you. Whether it stealing your seat on the bus, cleaning out your bank account or screwing your wife, at that instant, there is no doubt as whether that person's action is objectively wrong. In that instant you know beyond doubt that h/her actions matter not one whit upon survival or community standards. That action is wrong - period.

  6. That's not objective morality. That's situational.

  7. I'm not doubting objective morality, in fact I argue that we (non-believers) have just as much right to it as you (believers). Moral systems are defined. However, I don't think that compromises their objectivity. I argue a compatiblistic approach to the objectivity of moral principles. I see human beings in religious paradigms already declaring this objectivity granted by god. but if it isn't granted by god, then by what basis do we have to anchor their objectivity, you ask? Principles by which we believe in, are as real as any god, but perhaps moreso since they're realistically grounded.
    So naturally, you would here wonder what's to stop a such a system of principles from being thrown around by the wind of relitavism? Well, there will always be some flexability in some cases, but no more than practiced in the relitavistic nature of scripture interpretation, and how flexible that can be.
    But we have every right to stand up for helping others while doing no harm, despite creed.
    But you say... At the end of the day, our efforts make no difference in a universal perspective, therefore how can it matter what we do?
    And I say... Why must something adhere to some hypothetical universal standard in order to matter? This standard does not relate to human systems of action and consequence. Whether or not human beings matter, is a philisophical question, but let's not force our moral principles to suffer on behalf of philosophy.
    This is where nietzsche got it wrong, he wondered how anything could matter without a universal structure by which to build upon. But, it's our structure, let the cosmos do what it will, we maintain ourselves. Nietzsche is relying on a standard that can't be met, without realizing that it doesn't need to be met.
    The problem is in our definition of objectivity and the thought that it cannot exist without eternal reward or damnation. This is just a bad habit, and even atheists have to break it.

  8. "Objective Morality' is a term useful for attempting to force your moral views on others.
    Morality by it's nature is subjective.
    While similarities between people can produce general agreement on may judgments/situations, if you look close enough there are always detail differences.

  9. Subjective morality exists on the level of the individual. But under group conditions, an objective morality must be established to maintain order. When an individual reasons his or or subjective morality permits the raping of a young woman, the objective morality we establish must take precedence over those actions that compromise the integrity of the group. And in that sence, we might say that we're "forcing" a moral code on others, but i'd be hard pressed to find someone who would allow rape in their society. Again, it's the poor definition of objective, that creates this confusion.