From Darwin to Nazism? How Atypical and Irrelevant Examples Mislead Us
By Gary Krasner (05/09/08)
There are times when I fail to see the importance or relevance of a hot topic. For example, I don't know why liberals are against "permanent bases" in Iraq? We have bases in several other Mideast nations. And if a free nation freely signs a treaty to have U.S. bases, why is that so terrible? And what's their definition of 'permanent'? Mine is 'forever'. So if it helps, I can assure them that we will not have bases there forever into the future. Problem solved?
Another example is the outrage over the U.S. detainment center at 'Gitmo'. Many people want it closed down. But why? Do they think there's torture going on there? There isn't, according to current investigations. But if there were, do they think it's because of it's location off the U.S. mainland? Do they think the alleged torture would end if we detained jihadists in Leavenworth, Kansas? Or do they want us to release them? Release them to go where? To reside in your neighborhood? That may be the only alternative, as their native countries will not accept them back.
Ben Stein's documentary, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", has triggered yet another uproar which I do not understand. A sidebar in the documentary that religious conservatives have been promoting was the topic in David Klinghoffer's April 18, 2008 article, "Don’t Doubt It: An important historic sidebar" at:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=
Let me just say that I welcome any documentary that explores scientific bias and the squelching of dissent within science. But not this one. This film, and Mr. Klinghoffer, present an erroneous contention that Nazism was a typical form of utilitarian ethic. It wasn't.
Before I get into that issue, I'll briefly disclose my bias: Intelligent Design has not gone through the rigors of peer scrutiny as Darwin's and Wallace's Theory of Natural Selection. Thus it shouldn't be introduced into the curriculum of primary school science courses. It has a ways to go before that can happen, if at all. Also, a scientific theory must postulate conditions under which it can be proven false. Proponents of Intelligent have not seriously cited such conditions. That makes it solely a belief, and not science.
But the issue I alluded to earlier is the implication that there's a causal connection from Darwinism to Nazism. There isn't. Or that Darwinism was a necessary condition for Nazism to occur. Possibly or possibly not. But either way it's irrelevant--- which makes this yet another issue I find obscure and irrelevant, while others find it salient.
The reason it's an irrelevant supposition is because it relies on flaws in logic and perspective.
First, Darwinism---or really, the Law of Natural Selection---applies to laws in biology. Yes, pundits have related it to the social sciences, with the term, 'survival of the fittest'. That doesn't accurately describe its biological analog. But regardless, it was indeed a biological theory. It didn't require a conscience or higher intelligence to operate it. Biology runs on automatic. By contrast, Nazism was a political order that required a conscience to direct it. An evil one, to be sure.
Also, the connection that the film and Klinghoffer's article attempts to draw relies upon a classic dilemma that all societies face---the choice between the utilitarian ethic vs. the moral ethic. Or, the choice between what benefits society vs. individual liberties. Or, the need for a nation to establish an army for wartime vs. the personal hardships of an individual serviceman as a result of being in the armed forces. Or the need for a nation to forcibly vaccinate everyone vs. the individual choice not to assume the risks from the medical procedure. Or the need for society to protect the life of the helpless unborn vs. the right of the mother to control her own body. Etc.
For any given issue, a healthy society continually debates where to draw the line between the utilitarian ethic (which is often represented by science), and the moral ethic (which is often represented by religion). Healthy, if the debate is open to everyone, and not restricted to elites to decide. Never by fiat. Always by plebiscite. And always under review to accomodate changing conditions.
Absolutism vs. Relativism
Religionists would accuse me of using situational ethics. That's mere semantics. Christians are taught not to lie or break the law, but many had, in order to save Jews during the Holocaust. They would say they had to follow a higher law. God's law? No. Men wrote their religious laws. As they wrote the laws of all other religions. Indeed, all civil law used to be legitimized as God's law. Religious law later gave way to the law of the monarchs. Then sovereign states. So in answer to the question, 'where does our morality originate', the answer is as it always was: from man; not God.
Does this mean that secularists have license to make any law they wish, so long as they hold sway with the consensus view? Was slavery justified, or the Holocaust justified, just because it was sanctioned by majority opinion?
Such questions betray a misunderstanding of what consensus actually means. It doesn't presume the absence of responsibility and accountability. To the contrary, consensus is all that a free society has. Consensus is the cornerstone of consentual government. There was no consensus in Nazi Germany. The Nazis' murdered Jews and other innocents out-of-sight of the world, and their own people. Same for North Korea, Saddam's Iraq, Stalin's Soviet Union, and other totalitarian states in which the leader or party had to be revered as God for it to get away with it's brutality. And as with religions, the populations in such states had to first be infanticized and rendered powerless for the state to perpetrate its crimes. Stalin, Hitler, Pao Pot, Saddam Hussain, and Kim Jong Ill were all secular genocidal maniacs, to be sure. Yet not one of them had justified their butchery on their faith in atheism.
Now consider the religious maniacs in history who had killed in the name of their God. Or consider jihadism today. Shari'ah Islamic Law is what you get when you don't have government by consensus. According to the Qur'an, only God shall make laws. It proscribes man from making law, which is why followers of Islamic literalism oppose democracies.
The best that you can say about Christianity is that its laws may be revised. It follows no Doctrine of Abrogation, as Islam does. The Bible was revised. The Vatican issues new doctrines and interpretations and revises others. Apparently, sometimes from bottom-up pressures from the faithful. Call it 'consensus'. But the guide for decision-making for Christians is no different than Muslims in one respect: it takes its laws from a book written centuries ago. And that can be a problem, because societies fail when consensus is removed, and laws devolve into dogma because they cannot be questioned.
Our Constitution is a brief document, as Constitutions go. Not just because the Framers distrusted government. They expected that the nation would change in character, technology and mores. They expected that situations would change periodically, and that our laws must adapt. Our freedoms expand and contract, given the situation, say between time of war and peace The home is sacrosanct, but not if there's a warrant from a judge. "Reasonable searches and seizures" permits police traffic stops on our roads. In other words, the Framers WANTED us the think and reason together. Perhaps that's why the Constitution is non-specific, and why God isn't mentioned in it. Not once.
In the U.S., only 8% of the population owned slaves. Most Americans didn't support slavery. Then why had slavery prevailed for a time? In part, because consentual government was restricted. Only white, male property owners could vote. Consensus succeeds when everyone's choices matter. My "faith" is in the "Wisdom of the Crowd"---consistent with the book by the same name, authored by James Surowiecki.
Not all laws of morality can be written in stone. There's the difference. Religionists want to establish all possible moral rules based on today's norms, and under normal conditions, and then never reconsider them. Secularists want citizens to always be thinking, asking questions, and colloborate to form a consensus on laws and rules. Secularists have 'faith' that reason will prevail in a free and open society. Religionists have less faith in reason.
It's a conceit to claim that moral behavior must come from theological belief systems. Not that God exists, mind you. That cannot be proven. But rather, 'a belief in God' is what purportedly keeps people moral. But I was never told to care for my fellow man because God expects it of me. I do my good deeds with the knowledge that I will never receive rewards for it in the afterlife. I'm an atheist with personal ethics.
Thus, issues of morality, politics, and government should follow consensus---but not science. Science is different. Albert Einstein was asked what he would do if the consensus of scientists do not support his theory. He replied: "it only takes one of them to prove my theory is wrong."
Reason & Perspective
Returning to the libel by Messers Stein and Klinghoffer, let's examine it's main flaw: lack of perspective and proportions.
When liberals of the 1920s-30s were enamored by the science of eugenics, it was because it was scientific, logical and progressive in nature. Definitely utilitarian---to aid society as a whole. What had gone wrong with eugenics was how it was applied by the liberals' more extreme cousins---the fascists. Nazism applied it in a most extreme and brutal fashion. And since Nazism was a perverse form of governance, its public policy products had to be as well. The grotesque application of eugenics it adopted was an example of a utilitarian ethic that was incomparable to any other during normal times.
One can cite many examples of religious tyranny---or tyranny in the name of religion---for which the moral ethic would similarly be unfairly represented. It wouldn't be a reasonable depiction of the aforementioned classic dilemma any more than it would be to characterize Nazi Germany as a typical example of the utilitarian ethic.
Notice in all the above examples of the classic dilemma, there must be a reasonable balance. It's possible that the pendulum can be too far in one direction, depending on many factors. There are conditions in which the utilitarian ethic is warranted. Other times, the moral ethic must prevail. We are in a time, for example, in which there's great concern that too many vaccines are mandated for children. Thus, the pendulum may have to swing away from the utilitarian ethic, and towards individual liberties. In healthy societies, public consensus determines where that line will be drawn.
But for the example of Nazi Germany, it wasn't even close. There were no conceivable conditions to justify the extermination of innocent healthy adults and children. Those who had believed there were, were appropriately classified as pariahs of civil society and defeated.
But not soon enough for the millions who perished.
Gary Krasner
(Printer friendly version) Email: Gary Krasner
