An Evolutionary Theory of Right and Wrong

---

In reply to:

---

Perhaps it's because the orders were passed down from individuals who didn't have to witness the atrocity or who had weak personal judgement, and the individuals committing the acts were driven by both their hate of a perceived enemy and because it's their order to do so

---

I once watched a movie based on the transcripts of the Wannsee conference (I can't remember the name). It was quite sickening the way they talked about Jews. You could have substituted "Jew" for "cheese" and it would have seemed a very normal conversation.

Joebloggs and RobBob; If that period of history interests you I'd recommend Primo Levi's 'If this is a man' & 'The drowned and the saved', Elie Wiesel's 'Night', and Edith Bruck's 'Who loves you like this'. They are all excellent Holocaust memoirs. If you're more interested in studying the historical aspects of that period in Europe you should read Laurence Rees's 'Auschwitz', or Martin Gilbert's 'The Holocaust', but on the particular subject of how the German people colluded with Hitler there is no better read than Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's 'Hitlers willing executioners'. It is a very disturbing book, he was awarded Germany's democracy prize for the work.

Very interesting article. Good thinking Steve for posting it here. I've also heard this idea before and I thought it was true, but I hadn't read any scientific articles before. Now I feel more assured about this.If we're talking about Hitler, I'd only like to say that even a moral subconscious cannot affect our acts and ideas that much towards a totally twisted mind/personality. Apparently, when he did all this terrible things, his instinctive morality had a very deep sleep.

It's quite simple. The trick is to be determined and not realize how wrong what you're doing truly is. If he sees the world in a different light than most individuals, therefore relating to it differently, then I'm sure it could make a lot more sense. How many bosses or suck ups do you know that rise the corporate ladder based upon not exercising good moral judgement and do what looks good to their boss rather than what's truly good for the companies, clients, and co workers. Power means more to some people than other moral values.Also, have you heard the phrase that absolute power corrupts absolutely? The alpha male in a mammalian group is often lazy and does little work, aside from "work". He doesn't need to because he's the strongest and the group instinct is to follow him. Now it's more complicated with people because we're more intelligent and have questioning natures. The moral values seem to apply to most people, who try to be a part of the group. When you're on top of the group it's easy to ignore those moral values, just human nature. If you could get everything you wanted and didn't have to work, would you? Your first instinct would probably be to take it easy. We know how boring that might get, but there's people who gain inheritances or retire with large savings at a young age and do not much. Doesn't always turn out so well as boredom sets in, and many people decide to continue on with something like consulting or working part time even when they have more than enough money, but this is a very practical parallel to the moralities we're talking about. If there is no need to cooperate with the group as you're trying to get on top and control the group, then your moral values of compassion and cooperation are less emphasized than those alpha male tendencies to dominate and control the group.In reply to:his instinctive morality had a very deep sleep. With regards to the specific moralities you're talking about, that's probably true because they were less important to his situation.

You're absolutely right. Beside our moral grammar and base (as we can say this), even our instinct is multidimensional and it can surpass our moral grammar. For example, self-preservation can recommend us doing something against our moral values.Anyway, this example isn't strong enough, but I'm trying to say that our subconscious isn't holy and it can influence us to take the wrong way.

Morality is present in society...that's where we see its effect the most (though not necessarily where it finds application the most). We all pay attention to it so that we may get along with others. In that way, social morals DO effect us. But suppose these morals take a downward trend, then so would the behavior of everybody else. Or would it? If the perception of what is moral is limited to what the general populace thinks, then there IS no absolute morality...just popular opinion as to what it should be, which can change with the times. And when you have somebody like Hilter (or Stalin, or whoever) walk into a position where he can effect change, change occurs! Big time!!! Hence the need for something that lies OUTSIDE the ability of men to change...something like the Bible (NOT religion, which is greatly controlled by men). Indeed, the majority of what the average person find "moral" today is found in the Bible...and by no coincidence. But this is changing as the percentage of people who don't want to listen to the Bible (because it speaks against what some want to do) grows. Now we enter a morally wishy-washy phase where, ultimately (given the correct pressures and time) anything goes! By throwing out the Bible as a moral compass over one or two issues, we ultimately throw it all out! We become morally ungrounded, and ripe for what Hitler was able to achieve with the German people. It is happening today, as we speak.

" The trick is to be determined and not realize how wrong what you're doing truly is. If he sees the world in a different light than most individuals, therefore relating to it differently, then I'm sure it could make a lot more sense. How many bosses or suck ups do you know that rise the corporate ladder based upon not exercising good moral judgement and do what looks good to their boss rather than what's truly good for the companies, clients, and co workers. Power means more to some people than other moral values."Power, yes...or being able to do what you want to regardless of the morallity. That's what brings some folks to be so quick to reject the Bible. Then others follow suit because it's the popular thing to do, or opinion to have.

>To MR. U
>>>"wasn't Hitler a good church going lad?"

Actually Hitler wasn't, despite the claims of modern, particularly American, Aryans. According to my reading he detested religion in all it's forms. When one of his ministers came out making derogatory remarks about the church Hitler distanced himself but that was for purely political reasons. The fact that he ordered, or at least strongly suggested, high level party officials attend mass or services was done purely out of political motivation. When Himmler started developing the "mythology & mysticism" of the Reich, Hitler was embarrassed by it but for never understood reasons didn't put a stop to it. He was quoted as saying, something to the effect of, "We have finally began to unshackle the people from oppressive religion and here Himmler comes along trying to shackle them to a new religion." That's not a direct quote but is pretty close.

The only religion Hitler showed any fondness for was the Muslim religion but only in as far as he thought that it's "spreading of the faith by the sword" fit well with the German psyche. He reached this conclusion after the Muffta had visited him in the mid-thirties. As far as any other aspects of the religion he found it as useless as any other.

>To RobBob
"He created a hatred toward other nationalities, convincing people that they were the enemies of the Germans, particularly Jews."

I don't know that created accurately describes what he did and I think that the distinction does have a great deal of importance. What he did was exploit a deep burning resentment that the German people already had after the war and in particular the Treaty of Versailles that had ruined not just their empire but their economy and their pride. He did fan the flames of resentment to create a burning hate, so, in that sense the statement made is very accurate.

He did the same thing with the Jews. Jews and "Jewery" had long been resented and assailed in Europe going back at least a hundred years prior. Again he fanned the flames and made the idea popular and societally acceptable to an even larger portion of the population.

>>>"He didn't change people's moral values, he just directed their morals by influencing their perceived goals, friends, and enemies through intellectual means like propaganda and rallies."

Exactly, very well put.

The reason I think making those distinctions are important is because we must always be on guard that our emotions, or our satisfaction at an booming economy, are not exploited at the cost of our intellect. I think it's a bit delusional and unhealthy that we lay all the blame at Hitlers feet. Humanity (good moral Christan folks included) must share a portion of the blame for letting itself be lead and molded into the puppet of it's leader. That can happen anywhere and anytime and that is why that lesson must be learned.

>To Starfish
I to have read Hitler's Willing Executioners and concur it's a book everyone should read. I, for myself, never bought the proposition that the German people didn't know what was going on. Maybe they didn't know the specific details but on some level they had to know. There is a term in sociology (I can't remember right now) that describes how people, when confronted with the atrocities and horrors of what they, as a group, have done or supported or condoned, can convince themselves that they didn't know about it. It's my opinion that this, to varying degrees, is what was seen in post war Germany.

There is a bit of debate raging about whether or not Hitler planned, maybe as early as 1919, on exterminating the Jews and other "inferiors", as opposed to deportation and relocation, or whether the final solution was created out of necessity (necessity in the manner of what are you going to do with all these people you wish to get rid of.)

From what I have read, I tend to agree with the latter and I find that far more chilling and in that vein very relevant to the original post. I think the evidence shows Hitler had no "plan" for extermination, as in murder, of the Jews. Inter-Nazi correspondence seems to support this and the existence of the highly developed Madagascar plan seems to support it further. Finally there is Hitler himself, his aim was self glorification and to build the 1000 year Reich. He didn't care about the Jew other than to have him gone, by any means necessary. That is to say his hatred of the Jew was not so much the impetuous but the allowance, accommodation and the authority for the holocaust.

The Holocaust when viewed as a quasi-societal, bureaucratic manifestation is far more frightening, and far better explains the will of those who followed, than simply reducing it to the aim of few individual who duped a nation.

This is the part, of my drawn conclusion, I find chilling and relatable to the claim made in the original post, that is the Holocaust was a bureaucratic solution to a problem of numbers. If that is accepted (which it's not, it's hotly debated by historians) then the question becomes how wide spread and accepted was this within it's origins, bureaucratic as well as societal, and does that offer any comment on the claim made in the original post.

"If the perception of what is moral is limited to what the general populace thinks, then there IS no absolute morality..."How does that square with all the people through time who have said the Jews were evil and needed to be exterminated and supported their arguments with bible passages. How does that square with Jim Jones or David Koresh or people all over the world who have found, time and again, the "moral authority," for any aim the wished to achieve, in the bible.How can any document be absolute when there are absolutely so many vagaries and contradictions in it and, for that matter, so many different versions of it. As a moral compass I think it's defective. The needle always seems to be pointing the way the observer wants it to. But that's just me.

The Jim Jones/David Koresh types always find willing believers in those who have deceived themselves over one or more issues. Anyone who reads the Bible with good concious (and is of sound mind) would follow neither of those two, nor, more importantly, a lot of the different dogmas known as denominations that we have today in the guise of Christianity. Surely one can see that the Crusades were not about Christianity, but about a church that had become intertwined in politics with the government to the extent that the church authorities fell to some of the same weaknesses that we find in most politicians today. There are any number of cults today who over-emphasize one portion of the Bible to the exclusions of others. But, when the Bible is taken as a whole, this does not happen.So what's the answer? People taking personal responsibility for reading and knowing the Bible in its entirety. The Ten Commandments (which are found in the Old Testament and are often referred to by Christ, BTW) are the foundation...but not the end-all be-all. Contradictions in the Bible? Once understood, there are no contradictions in the Bible. When not understood, there appear to be many.Having a lot of experience myself with both believers and disbelievers, I will say that the disbelievers try really hard to find something wrong with the Bible. Answering the question truthfully as to why they do this can be quite enlightening for some.

If, as you suggest, people should read the bible for themselves and develop their own understanding of it, how does that translate into a societal dogma? When it must be admitted that different people will draw different conclusions form it. Who's interpretation and understanding does society follow? Who's to say who is correct?--------------Added---------------------------->>>"But, when the Bible is taken as a whole, this does not happen."Different people give different weight to different passages, thereby arriving at different meanings. How do we reconcile this?

People give different weight to different passages when they approach the Bible with an agenda of their own...a desire to find that something be a certain way. But when they do this, they come up against contradiction. When it is approached with an open mind the "weighting" of certain passages over others falls away.Now...who's to say who is correct? Well, with the above in mind, it's a lot easier than you might think. We all are accountable to each other in this regard. It becomes clear amongst those who follow Christ (and the Bible) as to who best understands it by listening to what they have to say and watching how they lead their lives. Folks generally older are going to be better at it as they have already made a lot of the mistakes younger folks do and aren't as likely to fall to some of the weaknesses that they would. It is always on ongoing debate about particulars...but what can generally be agreed to can be used as a basis. The Ten Commandments are a great place to start, for example. They are designed to be built upon by those interested in doing what is right by the Bible. It would have to be a "no compromise" approach, though. Allowing, for example, certain parts of the Bible to be discarded (or added to) could not be allowed. The fact that it (the Bible) would work so well in this fashion is testimoney to the validity of the content of the book, in my opinion.

I'm not sure how telling people to read the bible with an open mind is, in any practical terms, going to address the issues of competing interpretations, but...

So would that mean the King James version of the bible should never have been penned? Should protestants have never broken away from the Catholic Church? Where is the line of "no compromise" drawn and who draws it? Do Jews Muslims and other peoples have no input into societal dogmas?

Sorry for veering off topic here, but I'm curious.

This thread was supposed to be a more scientific/philosophical examination of the subject of morality and faith, but people don't seem to be that interested in or understand science, so here we are, back to the usual religious/philosophical debate, with you as the foil. So it shall be...the thread is hijacked.

> Having a lot of experience myself with both believers and disbelievers, I will say that the disbelievers try really hard to find something wrong with the Bible. Answering the question truthfully as to why they do this can be quite enlightening for some.

To people who are not locked in the fundamentalist box the bible is replete with flaws and contradictions.

I wonder what a fundamentalist believe in one religion tells a fundamentalist believere in another religion. "You're wrong", I guess. And at least one of them is wrong, but both are completely confident that their own beliefs are correct.

However, people who want to believe it, in the manner they choose, are fine. They are free to see the world however it may please them. The problem is that fundamentalists are rarely satisfied to live by their beliefs and set a good example so that others who see the results may be persuaded to follow.

Instead, they tend to think that people who don't see things the fundamentalist way just don't get it, and should be forced live by its rules anyway. That is what the conservative evangelical movement is all about.

It reached the point recently where the chief justice of the State Supreme Court of Alabama (in the middle of the night) had a huge rock engraved with the Ten Commandments (which of the many versions? I'm not sure) installed in a public area of the Supreme Court Building. A federal court ruled that it had to be removed. In the U.S., since it's not a Christian republic, the Constitution is the supreme law. Chief Justice Roy Moore was eventually removed from office.

A group of people who have political power and think they own truth is a dangerous thing, whether they're fundamentalist Muslims, Christians, Jews, or Nazis.

Does that answer your question? I know people who take astrology as literally true, but they don't bother me. If they were in the government and doing things like deciding court cases on the basis of the position of the planets, then I'd have a problem with it.

"I wonder what a fundamentalist believe in one religion tells a fundamentalist believere in another religion. "You're wrong", I guess. And at least one of them is wrong, but both are completely confident that their own beliefs are correct"The above statement is absolutely true and I used to think it was an awful bloody pity for the world that it was so: now I am at a point where there is an obscurity of thought and vision and only one thing remains certain to my mind; that God created ALL religions and endorses the existence of them all, for his own reasons, which are too complex for us to understand in this world (but which we may fully understand in the next)You said another thing Steve, which I found very interesting and would like to throw a question out on, to anyone who could answer it:"Instead, they tend to think that people who don't see things the fundamentalist way just don't get it, and should be forced live by its rules anyway. That is what the conservative Evangelical movement is all about"I know nothing about the Evangelical movement. Up till having read that, I had assumed that the only religious movement that would have been a proponent of conversion by force in this day and age would have been radical Islam. Am I wrong in that? Can anyone tell me more about these radical Evangelicists?

As far as I know, they're a figment of Steve's imagination. I've never come across one of them.

Well, if you've read the Koran you'd find it in no way compares to the Bible. It would not fulfill the same purpose. There goes the Muslim argument. As for the Jews, they use the same Bible...though most don't acknowledge the New Testament. FWIW, the Jewish God and the Christian God are one and the same.As for the Catholic church is concerned, it's my personal opinion that that particular church is a good example of one that has taken things too far. There is nothing in the Bible about the requirement for somebody to speak to the people for God (the Pope), for example. Am I saying that all Catholics are going to hell? Nope..didn't say that at all. (Just thought I'd head that one off right now.)As for who draws the line, I believe I already answered that one.

are completely confident that their own beliefs are correctthor inisist on making my point for me. What more can I say? ...thor> Well, if you've read the Koran you'd find it in no way compares to the Bible.I'm sure that Muslims think that the New Testament in no way compares to the Koran.starfish> ...the Evangelical movement...I'm talking about a political movement in the United States, not a religious one. It seems to be petering out, now that the evangelicals finally realize that the Republicans talk the talk, but they don't really walk the walk when it comes to doing the evangelicals' bidding. The Republicans are happy to put on circuses for the evangelicals, as they did when they made Terri Schiavo into a political football, and they offer up constructional amendments on things like defining marriage the thorian way, but they never manage to get out of the Republican-controlled congress. We'll see this election cycle if the evangelicals punish the Republican party by sitting on their hands rather than voting. But I digress with the Republicans.The conservative evangelicals actually do have an agenda, which can be found in the Republican platform every four years. (The platform, updated for each presidential race, is the list of things that a political party stands for and wants to implement.) It's anything but libertarian.There's nothing like it in Europe, as far as I know (the Christian Democrats don't qualify). You'd have to go to the Middle East to find religious blocs with so much political power. This article from the conservative Washington Times newspaper (from early 2004) has some interesting information: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040219-115609-3712r.htm.

"I'm sure that Muslims think that the New Testament in no way compares to the Koran."No doubt. Are you Muslim?

Are you kidding? To me, all such religious belief is absurd. Christians arguing with Muslims about "the truth" is as absurd as Muslims arguing with Jews or Jews arguing with Christians. And don't forget about Sunni and Shia Muslims' murdering each other.

Their fundamentalist elements all think they own the truth, but none of them do. They're all pathetically misguided. If you can step out of the religious cloud, all of those conflicts look like tree worshippers fighting with stone worshippers, and stone worshippers fighting with Santa Clause worshippers.