|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why Christian apologists want atheists to read Nietzsche
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Nietzche is rather beloved of Christian apologists because he at least hated christianity for what christians believe to be true of their faith, as opposed to "The new atheists" who dismiss christianity for what christians believe to be a mixture of some truth, a lot of over simplication a fair amount of nonsense.
Nietzsche hated christianity as the religion of slaves and the weak, that exalted pity and despised power. And that is true, despite the many instances of christian rulers being false to their faith.
Nietzsche poured a lot of scorn on those who gave up the faith but clung on to the morality, which was the morality of the underdog, and sickly.
Now I know his philosophy was perverted by his anti-semitic sister, and that Nietzsche had nothing but contempt for anti-semitism, or indeed nationalism (he himself choosing to remain stateless). And given the extent of his rift with Wagner after the latter's drift into reverence of german culture I have not the slightest doubt that he would have viewed Hitler and the Nazis with utter contempt.
All that said, however, I find his approach unsettling simply because it does respond to something in me, which I fear could appeal to many.
So the christian argument goes like this. Christianity brought into being a society in which God chooses the weak, even taking the form of a slave. Of course, none of this proves anything directly, but if you believe in your deepest intuition that this, and not Nietzsche's view of life is sane and good, that would be taken by many as some indication that revelation is taking place.
To which most atheists reply: Rubbish, pointing both to the imperfect history of christian institutions, and the great amount of good done by non-religious people and groups.
All of which is true.
But it is still relevant to state that these things follow from the nature of reality, if the christian view is accepted.
The challenge to atheists is to say whether they also believe that these things follow from the nature of reality, in which case the philosophy of Nietzsche can be viewed as wrong, and even be discriminated against, as indeed overt racism is.
Or do they believe that whilst they prefer themselves to be compassionate, philosophies such as Nietzsche's have an equally valid claim to be promoted and advocated, since neither side in the debate can claim to have right on their side?
How would they feel about a society in which his ideas held sway? Of course, most of them have no idea, because they have not read him. Which gets us back to where we started.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
So the christian argument goes like this. Christianity brought into being a society in which God chooses the weak, even taking the form of a slave. Of course, none of this proves anything directly, but if you believe in your deepest intuition that this, and not Nietzsche's view of life is sane and good, that would be taken by many as some indication that revelation is taking place.
I like to sum up Nietzsche's critique of Christian compassion like this...
Suppose you're sitting in church, and the pastor is going on about how we need to have compassion for the poor, the sick, the weak, etc.
Wonderful sentiments, you might think. But now imagine that the pastor says "Like, for example, this guy right over here!" And points directly at YOU.
If you would feel even a little bit uncomfortable at that, you might have some idea where Nietzsche, once you sweep away all the bombastic hyperbole, was getting at.
Essentially, his view of Christians in general was the same view that many cynics today would take of so-called champagne-socialists. "Oh sure, you love the little brown people in Africa because it allows you to feel like you're the Great Compassionate Westerner leading them out of their misery. But it's all just so much patronizing, self-aggrandizing rubbish".
Which is not to say that Nietzsche would neccessarily be opposed to acts of charity, just not undertaken for the usual Christian rationale.
[ 02. April 2013, 16:04: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Is there any reason at all to suppose Nietzsche would support acts of charity to Untermenschen? His anthropology was based on a distinction between worthwhile people and scum who don't deserve anything but to be stepped upon by the worthwhile people.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Nietzche is rather beloved of Christian apologists because he at least hated christianity for what christians believe to be true of their faith, as opposed to "The new atheists" who dismiss christianity for what christians believe to be a mixture of some truth, a lot of over simplication a fair amount of nonsense.
<snip>
So the christian argument goes like this. Christianity brought into being a society in which God chooses the weak, even taking the form of a slave. Of course, none of this proves anything directly, but if you believe in your deepest intuition that this, and not Nietzsche's view of life is sane and good, that would be taken by many as some indication that revelation is taking place.
To which most atheists reply: Rubbish, pointing both to the imperfect history of christian institutions, and the great amount of good done by non-religious people and groups.
All of which is true.
I can understand why a Christian would prefer to limit discussion to Chrisitianity-as-an-abstract-ideal without any reference to Christianity-as-it-exists (largely for the same reasons a Communist would prefer to discuss Communism-as-an-abstract-ideal instead of Communism-as-it-exists), but why do you consider it reasonable to expect that non-Christians likewise limit themselves?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is there any reason at all to suppose Nietzsche would support acts of charity to Untermenschen? His anthropology was based on a distinction between worthwhile people and scum who don't deserve anything but to be stepped upon by the worthwhile people.
I'm with Mousethief.
Nietzsche was quite explicitly opposed to any support given by the strong to the weak, as it inhibited their ability to flourish into their own greatness. He would deride even the desire to do good for the worse-off as a vestige of the Judeo-Christian slave morality.
The Nietzschean worldview is this: ninety-five percent of the people in the world are sheep, not real human beings. They exist to be used by the other five percent for the flourishing of the great and strong. Nietzsche's goal is not to liberate the ninety-five percent, but to wake up the five percent to their greatness and potential. The strong are seen as predators, and the weak their prey; it is actually, according to Nietzsche, as cruel to prevent the strong from taking advantage of the weak as it would be to prevent the lion from eating the lamb.
There is literally no moral system further from Christianity than what Nietzsche is discussing. That shouldn't be surprising, since it's contained entirely within a vicious criticism of Christianity.
I understand that Friedrich himself was vehemently opposed to anti-Semitism, and his sister Anna would literally wheel him out in a wheelchair while he was catatonically schizophrenic to somehow lend his magical aura to her anti-Semitic speeches. But the only thing separating Nietzsche's proposed transvaluation of good and evil from Nazi Germany is that the former is intended to rely on individual personal attributes, and the latter allowed a group who may have been individually and physically weak to massively amplify their power through technology and bureaucracy. Oh, what a difference a half-century makes.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Croesus
Sorry but I'm not clear what your getting at here. I see no more point than you do in Christianity, or anything else, just as an abstract idea.
What I'm getting at is that Christianity teaches, whether you believe it or not, that support for the vulnerable is an unqualified good. Nietzsche sees it as an unqualified bad.
Do you see no danger that the erosion of Christianity could lead to an erosion of compassion for the weak? Who. Else will champion them, and on what basis?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
The Nietzchean vision of the good life is so unpleasant, that it would make one wish Christianity were true even if one didn't already know that it is.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
I'm with Mousethief.
Nietzsche was quite explicitly opposed to any support given by the strong to the weak, as it inhibited their ability to flourish into their own greatness. He would deride even the desire to do good for the worse-off as a vestige of the Judeo-Christian slave morality.
The Nietzschean worldview is this: ninety-five percent of the people in the world are sheep, not real human beings. They exist to be used by the other five percent for the flourishing of the great and strong. Nietzsche's goal is not to liberate the ninety-five percent, but to wake up the five percent to their greatness and potential. The strong are seen as predators, and the weak their prey; it is actually, according to Nietzsche, as cruel to prevent the strong from taking advantage of the weak as it would be to prevent the lion from eating the lamb.
There is literally no moral system further from Christianity than what Nietzsche is discussing. That shouldn't be surprising, since it's contained entirely within a vicious criticism of Christianity.
Good heavens! Seriously, this all sounds just like how British politicians talk about our education system.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The Nietzchean vision of the good life is so unpleasant, that it would make one wish Christianity were true even if one didn't already know that it is.
This dilemma probably tormented Thomas Carlyle as a precurser of Nietzsche, and partly explained his popularity as a writer in a generation whose readers already had a sense of the same disquiet. Likewise with Thomas Hardy when he wrote his poem God's Funeral. Unable any longer to believe in God, or at least Christ, they could not find a benign substitute. According to A.N. Wilson, Carlyle realized how easily the God-shaped hole in a human mind could be filled by the Uebermensch. This insight horrified him, but it must also have fascinated him: Goebbels chose Carlyle's biography of Frederick the Great to read aloud to his Fuehrer in the bunker.
I thank Christianity, in part, for our fairly democratic forms of government. But what becomes of the arts (for instance) in a democracy? Our race to the bottom in popular music is all-too-well explained by Robert Pattison as inevitable given democracy, pantheism, and romanticism. Even C.S. Lewis warned in "Screwtape proposes a toast" that democracy and equality under the law will inevitably tempt someone who is clearly inferior, and knows it, to whine "I'm as good as you," thus tending to undermine all standards of excellence, and ultimately the viability of the society.
I doubt that the essence of the Christian ethic is as simple as Anteater portrays it-- but if it is, then it needs a dose of Nietzsche for its own long-term good.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Do you see no danger that the erosion of Christianity could lead to an erosion of compassion for the weak? Who. Else will champion them, and on what basis?
Human beings – that’s who .
Over a million years ago a female Homo erectus died of vitamin A poisoning in Africa – a cast of her fossilised bones can be seen in the Hall of Human Origins at the Natural History Museum in Washington, DC. It’s likely that she took weeks or months to die, in incapacitating pain. Somehow she obtained food and water and was protected from carnivores during her terminal illness. The fairies or her relatives? (Alan Walker and Pat Shipman’s The Wisdom of the Bones: In Search of Human Origins New York: Knopf, 1996
Or do Homo erectus somehow qualify as Christians?
On what basis?
We have evolved what is known as the attachment system – we put kin first of course but we have the ability to react to others’ pains and pleasures. Mirror neurons may be part of the reason why we (some more than others) are inherently moved by the plight of our fellows – hence much of Christianity's tendency to concentrate on images and descriptions of torture (Crown of thorns, scourging, crucifixion etc. just as charities' marketing people have solid proof of the efficacy of using pictures of starving/injured children). (Superstitious people/ control freaks, as they so often do, ingest our evolutionary developments and divert them to produce a by-product known as religion. The most powerful attachments being Father {priest etc.}, Mother {abbess etc.}, Sister {nun}, Brother {monk} all inducing attachment based and kinship reinforced models of instinctive association and the acceptance of unquestionable authority. Watch some Christians praying/speaking-in-tongues – it’s the same pleading bodily action they undertook when two years old and wanted Daddy to pick them up and give them a cuddle.)
Do I see no danger that the erosion of Christianity could lead to an erosion of compassion for the weak?
No I don't - the old canard of no morality without Christianity is both ridiculous because the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary and self-defeating through simple observation of the behaviour of many Christians. Christians seem to be, on average, neither better nor worse than non-Christians. It’s like claiming that abuse is no worse inside a church hierarchy than anywhere else – it probably isn’t, and both non-religious and religious organisations have compounded their wickedness by striving to hide the evidence of wrongdoing that might harm the brand – but the point is that if a church is the route through which morality reaches the hoi-polloi some of it ought to stick en-route thereby producing lower rates of wickedness. As my old mother used to say – “You can’t have your cake and eat it”.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I can understand why a Christian would prefer to limit discussion to Chrisitianity-as-an-abstract-ideal without any reference to Christianity-as-it-exists (largely for the same reasons a Communist would prefer to discuss Communism-as-an-abstract-ideal instead of Communism-as-it-exists), but why do you consider it reasonable to expect that non-Christians likewise limit themselves?
It works like this.
Christian: We should take care of the weak.
Christian's deeds: doesn't take care of the weak.
Decent person's response: Grrrr.
Nietzschean: We should trample the weak.
Nietzschean's deeds: doesn't trample the weak.
Decent person's response: Hooray!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I really like one of Nietzshe's one-liners; think of it quite often when I'm Hosting and posting here.
quote:
One often contradicts an opinion when what is uncongenial is really the tone in which it was conveyed.
A real pity he didn't apply that good thought to the often "uncongenial" expressions of his thoughts in his writing. Often he comes across as thoroughly nasty.
He had a sad life. But he didn't like pity. Here's one of his thoughts on that.
quote:
Christianity is called the religion of pity. Pity stands opposed to the tonic emotions which heighten our vitality: it has a depressing effect. We are deprived of strength when we feel pity. That loss of strength which suffering as such inflicts on life is still further increased and multiplied by pity. Pity makes suffering contagious.
A complex, often haunted man, whose writings seem to me to be full of hyperbole and contradiction. I think he wrestled a lot with his internal inconsistencies and in the end they got the better of him.
[ 03. April 2013, 06:44: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
No I don't - the old canard of no morality without Christianity is both ridiculous because the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary and self-defeating through simple observation of the behaviour of many Christians.
I don't think this argument works.
An analogy would be that the link between smoking and lung cancer is in doubt because people still smoke. When, as they often did, individuals and nations committed immoral acts, despite a claim to be christian, at no time could they justify those acts based on the christian belief.
Of course morality can exist without christianity, as it plainly did before. That is not the issue. The question is: What sort of morality?
Those who advocate eugenic programs are by no necessity nasty people. They simply have a different view of what is the best for the optimal happiness of the human race, and in their view, elimination of weaker strains is a positive move.
And apart from a view of humanity that goes beyond the purely physical, I cannot see any argument that could resist this idea. Maybe you can.
Has nobody noticed that with the decline of religion in the West, which really got going in the 17th century, the number of people slaughtered in wars and repressive regimes has got bigger and bigger.
And I know that correlation doesn't prove causation. But I suppose I'm just a tad irritated at the old idea that religion is a cause of war, which fits badly onto any analysis of patterns of warfare following the decline of religion in the west.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Has nobody noticed that with the decline of religion in the West, which really got going in the 17th century, the number of people slaughtered in wars and repressive regimes has got bigger and bigger.
To be fair, the number of people slaughtered by repressive regimes correlates with the state's administrative ability. Had St Louis IX of France wanted to repress his subjects, the organisation of his state wouldn't really have been up to it.
Having said that, the evidence would also be that in Europe the kingdoms that successfully moved towards the modern absolute state strongly tended towards deism rather than Christianity. Revolutionary France is the most obvious example; Frederick the Great's Prussia is another.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
No I don't - the old canard of no morality without Christianity is both ridiculous because the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary and self-defeating through simple observation of the behaviour of many Christians.
Contrary to the observed behaviour of many atheists, the magic words 'old canard' do not suffice to turn a straw man defence into a cogent response.
That morality is an evolved response is neither here nor there. All human behaviour evolved. What justifies calling religion a by-product? Nothing. For that matter, if superstitious people and control freaks divert evolved morality, where do they come from? They evolved too. So if it's rational for atheists to treat non-kin morally on the grounds you give, it's equally rational for atheists to be superstitious control-freaks.
(A further problem: the above all supposes that the only pertinent question is, 'should I be moral?' Rather than, 'supposing I want to be moral, what is the moral thing to do?' The above Just So Story about mirror neurons is no help in answering that question whatsoever.)
[ 03. April 2013, 11:02: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Of course morality can exist without christianity, as it plainly did before. That is not the issue. The question is: What sort of morality?
Given that the laws of hospitality, the Golden Rule, and a positive opinion of charity seem to be some of the most widespread and common beliefs in human culture, including non-Christian and pre-Christian societies, the notion that these things are peculiarly unique to Christianity doesn't withstand scrutiny. In other words, your concern that Christianity alone is concerned with the treatment of the weak is just plain wrong. A lot of people seem to have been able to work out a similar system independently, and on a variety of different bases.
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Has nobody noticed that with the decline of religion in the West, which really got going in the 17th century, the number of people slaughtered in wars and repressive regimes has got bigger and bigger.
Have you noticed that "the number of people slaughtered in wars and repressive regimes" has gotten bigger as world population has gotten bigger? (Total world population at the dawn of the 17th century is estimated at about 550 million, roughly the same as the present population of the EU's 27 member nations.) It's been argued that on a per capita basis, the twentieth century was actually the least violent on record, despite containing the Holocaust and two world wars.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:
No I don't - the old canard of no morality without Christianity is both ridiculous because the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary and self-defeating through simple observation of the behaviour of many Christians.
I don't think this argument works.
It's a logical fallacy. Citing the existence of immoral Christians in this context is a species of denying the antecedent, which is not a valid argument.
(Note: this doesn't mean I think there cannot be morality without Christianity, so anyone thinking of attacking me on that point can can it.)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Croesus:
quote:
A lot of people seem to have been able to work out a similar system independently, and on a variety of different bases.
Well I certainly do not think that is true of classical antiquity, but the discussion is a long one. The main point of my post is to ask whether you believe that compassion for the weak follows from the nature of reality, so that a view like Nietzsche's could be shown to be against reality and provably detrimental. Or does his view of life have equal right to be believed since neither can be shown to be based on anything remotely provable?
As to your point about population, this is interesting and I may do some digging. But my initial trawl of sites purporting to list deaths by state violence gives:
C20: ~200 m dead. Average population 4.25 bn
C19: ~1.5 m dead. Average population 1.32 bn
Do you have any better figures? I agree mine are very preiminary. But I see little sign that the demise of religion has led to peace for all.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Has nobody noticed that with the decline of religion in the West, which really got going in the 17th century, the number of people slaughtered in wars and repressive regimes has got bigger and bigger.
Have you noticed that "the number of people slaughtered in wars and repressive regimes" has gotten bigger as world population has gotten bigger? (Total world population at the dawn of the 17th century is estimated at about 550 million, roughly the same as the present population of the EU's 27 member nations.) It's been argued that on a per capita basis, the twentieth century was actually the least violent on record, despite containing the Holocaust and two world wars.
I doubt it can be claimed as least violent. If you look at this page which calculates deaths as a percentage of world population, you can see it was pretty violent. If you take a rough sum of all the deaths by war, genocide and induced famine in the C20 it's about 13% of the world died. The only century that beats it is the C14 which contained the Mongol invasions of Asia and Europe, the violent transition to the Ming dynasty in China, and Tamerlaine's conquests. All together this was probably around 17% as a rough guess. The C18 had around 11% and C17 had about 7.5%.
Obviously these numbers are hardly complete or precise, but they give a rough estimate. No matter the precise figures, the twentieth century was certainly one of the most violent centuries.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Croesus:
quote:
A lot of people seem to have been able to work out a similar system independently, and on a variety of different bases.
Well I certainly do not think that is true of classical antiquity, but the discussion is a long one.
The mere existence of something like the laws of hospitality argue that classical antiquity was fairly concerned with protecting the weak an vulnerable. I'd even go so far as to argue that the portrayal of Thrasymachos in Plato's Republic is kind of a proto-Nietzche. Most of the book is devoted to picking apart the argument of Thrasymachos and explaining in excruciating detail why he's wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
As to your point about population, this is interesting and I may do some digging. But my initial trawl of sites purporting to list deaths by state violence gives:
C20: ~200 m dead. Average population 4.25 bn
C19: ~1.5 m dead. Average population 1.32 bn
Do you have any better figures? I agree mine are very preiminary. But I see little sign that the demise of religion has led to peace for all.
I've got no comprehensive figures presently at hand, but the figure for the nineteenth century seems drastically understated. Just the military deaths from the Napoleonic Wars total about 2.5 million (estimates vary), and that was just at the start of the 19th century.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I doubt it can be claimed as least violent. If you look at this page which calculates deaths as a percentage of world population, you can see it was pretty violent. If you take a rough sum of all the deaths by war, genocide and induced famine in the C20 it's about 13% of the world died. The only century that beats it is the C14 which contained the Mongol invasions of Asia and Europe, the violent transition to the Ming dynasty in China, and Tamerlaine's conquests. All together this was probably around 17% as a rough guess. The C18 had around 11% and C17 had about 7.5%.
Obviously these numbers are hardly complete or precise, but they give a rough estimate. No matter the precise figures, the twentieth century was certainly one of the most violent centuries.
Part of the problem with this methodology is that it is, in part, based on classification. For instance, if the broad conflict we refer to as "the Napoleonic Wars" (to continue from the previous example) were split into individual conflicts (The War of the Third Coalition, the Invasion of Russia, the Hundred Days, etc.) a lot of them would drop off the linked list altogether. In other words, it's not at all clear that a few really big wars necessarily kill more people than a larger number of small, poorly documented wars.
In other words, it's similar to the leap of logic that goes from "more Americans live in New York than any other city" to "the majority of Americans live in New York City".
[ 03. April 2013, 17:45: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lawrence
Ship's Grill Master
# 4913
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Croesus:
quote:
A lot of people seem to have been able to work out a similar system independently, and on a variety of different bases.
Well I certainly do not think that is true of classical antiquity, but the discussion is a long one...
Does not Christianity come from classical antiquity?
Posts: 199 | From: Where once you could get a decent Brain Sandwich | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
As to your point about population, this is interesting and I may do some digging. But my initial trawl of sites purporting to list deaths by state violence gives:
C20: ~200 m dead. Average population 4.25 bn
C19: ~1.5 m dead. Average population 1.32 bn
This is the first list I found on wikipedia. If you proportion it to world population, the Mongols come out far ahead of anything else. But they're not really relevant to a discussion of Christianity, unless you're going to blame them on Genghis Khan's mummy issues. Most of the rest of the top ten are in China. China was until recently not noted for its Christian piety; though Christianity was a major factor in the Taiping Rebellion. If we confine ourselves to Europe, I think the question of whether the 20th Century was proportionally more violent depends on whether you take low or high estimates for the numbers killed in the Thirty Years War and the total population of Europe at the time.
Of course, the wikipedia list I'm using only cites definable wars. Continual skirmishes between non-state or small-state actors don't come into it.
Reviews of Steven Pinker's book arguing Croesos' case (that proportionally violence is declining over time) suggest that its reliability on any given subject is in inverse proportion to the reviewer's knowledge of that subject.
[ 03. April 2013, 18:34: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The mere existence of something like the laws of hospitality argue that classical antiquity was fairly concerned with protecting the weak an vulnerable.
As I understand it, the laws of hospitality care for the weak and vulnerable in the same sense that diplomatic immunity does. They're largely aimed at guests of the same social class.
quote:
I'd even go so far as to argue that the portrayal of Thrasymachos in Plato's Republic is kind of a proto-Nietzche. Most of the book is devoted to picking apart the argument of Thrasymachos and explaining in excruciating detail why he's wrong.
Three points to make: it's arguable that Thrasymachos is in the Republic because Plato considers him representative of the considerations guiding Athenian foreign policy. He was known at the time as a teacher of rhetoric. Plato and Socrates were not representative of Athenian society. Secondly, Plato's virtues in the Republic notably do not include care for the weak and vulnerable. He doesn't even consider that as part of morality. Thirdly, Plato's counterargument depends heavily on the existence of non-naturalistic entities. He's not really a good ally if you want to argue that morality can have a naturalistic basis.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
On the question of statistics, we might also consider violent deaths in states influenced by philosophies other than Christianity. Taking state sponsored atheism, for example there were 66 million under Lenin, Stalin and Kruschev between 32 and 61 million killed by Chinese regime since 1949, and 1/3 of the 8 million Khmers - 2.7 million were killed between 1975 and 1975 by the Khmer Rouge (Guinness book of world records 1992).
Whilst no state can claim anything like a perfect record when it comes to human rights, I don't see how it could be argued that there is no difference between modern cultures heavily influenced by Christianity, and those heavily influenced by other philosophies.
[ 03. April 2013, 18:55: Message edited by: Drewthealexander ]
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Attempting to get the thread back on track . . .
Of course, I cannot force anyone to answer my question, but it'd be sort of nice if they did, even if with a "dunno".
So my thesis is that if christianity is true, then it means the God, who has made public the fact that he is on the side of the dispossessed will triumph. Which means any actions designed to oppress and enslave the weak will be be met with His judgement.
Now that may not be enough to stop people doing that, even those who would claim to believe. But it does make their actions irrational.
Is there anything deriveable from a totally materialistic view of reality that makes such actions irrational? The fact that some simply prefer to act so is irrelevant, because many others do not, and the question is whether there is any compelling reason why they should?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
Whilst no state can claim anything like a perfect record when it comes to human rights, I don't see how it could be argued that there is no difference between modern cultures heavily influenced by Christianity, and those heavily influenced by other philosophies.
Those aren't exclusive. Marxism is heavily influenced by Christianity, just as liberal humanism is.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
On the question of statistics, we might also consider violent deaths in states influenced by philosophies other than Christianity. Taking state sponsored atheism, for example there were 66 million under Lenin, Stalin and Kruschev between 32 and 61 million killed by Chinese regime since 1949, and 1/3 of the 8 million Khmers - 2.7 million were killed between 1975 and 1975 by the Khmer Rouge (Guinness book of world records 1992).
One of the most common dishonesties associated with Communist death statistics, particularly in regard to the PRC, is that they often include deaths better attributed to incompetence or failed policies in addition to deaths from purges or revolts. For instance, the Great Leap Forward was an honest attempt at industrialization and the widespread famine that followed its collapse was a truly unintended consequence. (Unlike Stalin's artificial famines.) It makes as much sense to count this as "deliberate killing" as it does to blame Christian missionaries for "murdering" Native Americans by spreading smallpox and swine flu.
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
Whilst no state can claim anything like a perfect record when it comes to human rights, I don't see how it could be argued that there is no difference between modern cultures heavily influenced by Christianity, and those heavily influenced by other philosophies.
Christianity has a two millennium history. Why restrict analysis of it to modern times? That seems a bit like cherry picking.
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
So my thesis is that if christianity is true, then it means the God, who has made public the fact that he is on the side of the dispossessed will triumph. Which means any actions designed to oppress and enslave the weak will be be met with His judgement.
This seems like "argument by wishful thinking". In short, you seem to be arguing that it would be good if someone dispensed justice to oppressors, therefore the Christian God (or similar entity) must exist. Preferring something be true is not evidence that it is true.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
Whilst no state can claim anything like a perfect record when it comes to human rights, I don't see how it could be argued that there is no difference between modern cultures heavily influenced by Christianity, and those heavily influenced by other philosophies.
Those aren't exclusive. Marxism is heavily influenced by Christianity, just as liberal humanism is.
But not, I think we would agree, in the way the Stalinist and post-Stalinist Communists regarded human life.
Anteater asked
Is there anything deriveable from a totally materialistic view of reality that makes such actions irrational? The fact that some simply prefer to act so is irrelevant, because many others do not, and the question is whether there is any compelling reason why they should?
From a purely materialistic viewpoint I would say that Neitzche had a good argument. If weakness is detrimental to wider human flourishing, then expending limited resources on the weak would seem to be counter-productive.
Happily most of humanity does not live its whole existence in the material realm.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Those aren't exclusive. Marxism is heavily influenced by Christianity, just as liberal humanism is.
But not, I think we would agree, in the way the Stalinist and post-Stalinist Communists regarded human life.
We're back to that abstract ideal vs. as-exists distinction I mentioned earlier, aren't we?
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Is there anything deriveable from a totally materialistic view of reality that makes such actions irrational?
John Harsanyi veil of ignorance seems like a fairly decent jumping off point that doesn't rely on supernatural revelation.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The mere existence of something like the laws of hospitality argue that classical antiquity was fairly concerned with protecting the weak an vulnerable.
When traveling in a sparsely populated desert, everyone is weak and vulnerable. I'd guess that the laws of hospitality arose particularly out of those conditions.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For instance, the Great Leap Forward was an honest attempt at industrialization and the widespread famine that followed its collapse was a truly unintended consequence.
This was run by a brutally repressive regime with a dictatorial madman at the helm, which imprisoned and executed any dissenters, either repressed, exterminated or ignored the engineers and skilled members of society that could have potentially made the attempt a success, and ran something akin to concentration camps in the villages to force the process along.
Calling it an "honest attempt at industrialization" is a bit of a gloss.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given that the laws of hospitality, the Golden Rule, and a positive opinion of charity seem to be some of the most widespread and common beliefs in human culture, including non-Christian and pre-Christian societies, the notion that these things are peculiarly unique to Christianity doesn't withstand scrutiny. In other words, your concern that Christianity alone is concerned with the treatment of the weak is just plain wrong. A lot of people seem to have been able to work out a similar system independently, and on a variety of different bases.
I may have missed it. Can you point out where it was claimed that non-Christians can not be moral? What exactly is the connection between your post and the post you are responding to?
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Have you noticed that "the number of people slaughtered in wars and repressive regimes" has gotten bigger as world population has gotten bigger? (Total world population at the dawn of the 17th century is estimated at about 550 million, roughly the same as the present population of the EU's 27 member nations.) It's been argued that on a per capita basis, the twentieth century was actually the least violent on record, despite containing the Holocaust and two world wars.
It's a triumph then! A boon for humanity. No doubt they will be smuggling
The Better Angels of Our Nature across Syrian borders any day now.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
This was run by a brutally repressive regime with a dictatorial madman at the helm, which imprisoned and executed any dissenters, either repressed, exterminated or ignored the engineers and skilled members of society that could have potentially made the attempt a success, and ran something akin to concentration camps in the villages to force the process along.
Calling it an "honest attempt at industrialization" is a bit of a gloss.
No, the "gloss" is trying to conflate victims of unintentional famine with victims of deliberate murder by a standard that wouldn't be applied to Chiang Kai-shek or Lord John Russell because you're worried people will think Mao Zedong is okay if they find out he deliberately killed "only" twelve million* people.
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
I may have missed it. Can you point out where it was claimed that non-Christians can not be moral? What exactly is the connection between your post and the post you are responding to?
Always glad to oblige. The point wasn't that non-Christians couldn't be moral, but rather than non-Christians would never be interested in helping "the weak", however defined. It seemed to genuinely perplex our thread opener:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
What I'm getting at is that Christianity teaches, whether you believe it or not, that support for the vulnerable is an unqualified good. Nietzsche sees it as an unqualified bad.
Do you see no danger that the erosion of Christianity could lead to an erosion of compassion for the weak? Who. Else will champion them, and on what basis?
The underlying premise here is that absent Christianity, no one would feel compassion for "the vulnerable".
And could you please not attribute my posts to anteater. Thanks.
--------------------
*Not an actual body count, just a rhetorical "for instance".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
John Harsanyi veil of ignorance seems like a fairly decent jumping off point that doesn't rely on supernatural revelation.
Shall we go through some of the standard undergraduate criticisms?
1) The results depend largely on unmotivated stipulations about risk-aversion. Rawls requires that people are very risk averse: he needs this to be true to get his maximin policy. (Choose that society in which the worst-off person is least worst-off.) But game theory would normally go for mean expected payout, in which case you'd end up with a utilitarian ethic. In economic terms, that translates to maximise the wealth of a society without regard to the distribution.
The results also depend on unmotivated stipulations about inequality-aversion. That is, Rawls thinks people behind the veil of ignorance will not care at all about inequality. Therefore, they'll choose a distribution with wealth-creators rather than a communist distribution.
2) Rawls' approach shares the basic weakness of all utility/welfarist approaches to justice, which is that there's no measure of happiness/welfare/utility other than the monetary distribution. (I didn't know the veil of ignorance was first proposed by an economist. I am not surprised.) And so by treating money as merely a measure of happiness, it supposes that wealthy people are merely happier than other people, and not also more powerful.
3) It's not a value-neutral jumping off point. It presupposes the liberal humanism that it's trying for. (Rawls conceded this in his follow-up book.) More seriously, he's effectively endorsing the viewpoint that the good life is that of homo economicus: one of maximal satisfaction of consumer desires.
4) Let's suppose that it can be made into a genuine jumping off point. Why jump off from there, rather than from some other philosopher's proposed jumping off point that supports a different position?
5) The veil of ignorance is in any way not coherent. The idea of people who don't know who they are, and don't know what they believe, or what the good life is, or even whether they will be altruistic or selfish, but are nevertheless able to deliberate about what prerequisites they would like for the good life is incoherent. One can't genuinely imagine how such people would reason.
See Skidelsky and Skidelsky's book, How Much is Enough? for further argument to the effect that neutrality about the good life, whether in the veil of ignorance version or any other, merely endorses neo-liberal economics. And that is such a success at the moment.
If you leave out Rawls' stipulations about risk-aversion, you're basically getting teh morality of right-wing neo-liberal economics. If you add the stipulation of risk-aversion, you get the Clinton/New Labour economic project: the hope that if government messes about the edges you can pull an egalitarian rabbit out of a neo-liberal hat. That turned out well for the left.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
IIRC, Bonhoeffer seemed to like Nietzsche, or at least quoted him favorably. He wasn't so kind of Kant.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
An analogy would be that the link between smoking and lung cancer is in doubt because people still smoke.
I disagree - I suspect that people who believe that smoking leads to lung cancer are less likely to smoke than those who do not (though some will ignore the knowledge). Belief in christian teaching seems not to show a similar reduction.
quote:
When, as they often did, individuals and nations committed immoral acts, despite a claim to be christian, at no time could they justify those acts based on the christian belief.
What do you mean by “the christian belief” – one of the problems of talking with christian believers is that they all seem to have their own version of “the christian belief” – and sometimes believe that their superior belief justifies killing another person who claims to be a christian. (Cathars for example?)
quote:
Of course morality can exist without christianity, as it plainly did before. That is not the issue. The question is: What sort of morality?
Back to defining morality. Many would choose to include altruism, others would say doing what is right despite contrary pressure. Some even think it something that justifies mass murder (relevant bit starts at 8:40). "If you can justify this as good is there anything left to call evil"
I'm sure you are as revolted by this as I - but many who claim to be Christian look to such men as embodying "the Christian belief".
quote:
Those who advocate eugenic programs are by no necessity nasty people. They simply have a different view of what is the best for the optimal happiness of the human race, and in their view, elimination of weaker strains is a positive move.
And apart from a view of humanity that goes beyond the purely physical, I cannot see any argument that could resist this idea. Maybe you can.
a) Do you consider compassion to be physical?
b) Who are you going to allow to choose what is the best for the optimal happiness of the human race - an atheist perhaps?
FWIW I don’t think that religion is a cause of war – though I suspect it provides an excuse which may make starting and continuing wars easier. Having said that – the creation of the modern state of Israel was based on (historically inaccurate) religious belief and a lot of war (over territory) has predictably flowed from that.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
unintentional famine
I don't think that what is described regarding the concentration-camp-like conditions under the great leap forward and the wanton destruction of society can be described as unintentional famine.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
On the question of statistics, we might also consider violent deaths in states influenced by philosophies other than Christianity. Taking state sponsored atheism, for example there were 66 million under Lenin, Stalin and Kruschev between 32 and 61 million killed by Chinese regime since 1949, and 1/3 of the 8 million Khmers - 2.7 million were killed between 1975 and 1975 by the Khmer Rouge (Guinness book of world records 1992).
One of the most common dishonesties associated with Communist death statistics, particularly in regard to the PRC, is that they often include deaths better attributed to incompetence or failed policies in addition to deaths from purges or revolts. For instance, the Great Leap Forward was an honest attempt at industrialization and the widespread famine that followed its collapse was a truly unintended consequence. (Unlike Stalin's artificial famines.)
This used to be assumed by historians. Based on recent evidence coming to light, and particularly the outstanding work by the historians Jung Chang and Jon Halliday (I'd highly recommend their book Mao: The Untold Story), it's being revised. I believe it's now widely accepted that Mao both expected and planned for mass deaths as a result of his policies, yet continued with them anyway. He recieved many reports of the mass deaths yet pushed ahead with his policies, considering that the deaths were a price he was willing to pay. In fact, he expected even more deaths than occured.
The Communist party has afterwards tried to hide their complicity by blaming the weather, or pretending it was due to failed policies. But in fact it was caused and maintained in full knowledge of the resulting slaughter. Mao's instructions were key, such as one that took one third of the grain produced to give to foreign clients (often as a 'revolutionary gift' to other communist regimes to improve his personal international prestige, rather than as part of a trade deal). Those who were classed as enemies of the regime had the worst effects of the famine specifically targeted against them. The group that fared worst were the Tibetans, with one in five dying.
Should the Great Leap Forward be included among Mao's murder tally? He may not have committed democide for it's own sake, but knowing mass deaths will occur as a result of your policies and doing them anyway? I would argue it would be a crime to exclude them. It was one of the worst atrocities of his regime and should not be hidden or argued away as just another famine.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I've got a lot of sympathy with the "veil of ignorance" argument, Hawk, which Croesos cited in one direction and you are I think trying to dispel in another.
There is a "veil of ignorance" over the extent to which values traditionally associated with the Christian community are exclusive. Personally, I think our distinctive is grace, which is much more about application of values and beliefs (shared or not) and what you do when they are different. But it's potty to claim exclusivity for a whole load of Christian values which are not at all exclusive. There's a value in lifting the veil on that.
There is also a "veil of ignorance" about Nietzche, which to some extent he is responsible for by his uncongenial, often shocking, observations and also his inconsistencies. TBH, it's certainly affected me for a lot of my life, but I've been influenced by some of the information brought to life by previous discussions on the Ship. I think I'd swallowed relatively uncritically the cultural notions (certainly not just Christian notions) that the thought worlds of Nietzsche (and Wagner) had had a baleful influence on the German psyche in general and some key National Socialists in particular. But I now think there's a lot more to the story than any kind of simplistic connection.
At any rate, I'm not sure there is much educational value (or any other value) in seeing Nietsche as a kind of "negative advertisement" in favour of Christianity. That seems likely to support veils of ignorance both about Nietzsche and about Christianity (both within and without).
There is a kind of general value to be drawn from this example which is "don't rush to judgement". That is a Christian value (Sermon on the Mount) but by no means an exclusively Christian value.
[ 04. April 2013, 11:36: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
unintentional famine
I don't think that what is described regarding the concentration-camp-like conditions under the great leap forward and the wanton destruction of society can be described as unintentional famine.
It's the same question as whether killing civilians when you bomb infrastructure is morally equivalent to killing civilians by bombing them directly. Stalin and Mao were either wilfully ignorant or completely careless about deaths caused, but mass starvation was probably not the intention of their policies. The intention of both was probably to secure food supply to the cities. (People in the countryside who are short of food lie down and die; people in the cities start rioting and overthrowing the government.) For that matter, Winston Churchill's policies in India in the Second World War equally resulted in famine. Neither is quite the same as Hitler, who was pursuing policies with the intention of killing Jews.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
I reckon I'd be a lot more likely to agree with Nietzsche if I could be sure I was in the 5%...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Stalin and Mao were either wilfully ignorant or completely careless about deaths caused, but mass starvation was probably not the intention of their policies.
I don't read it like that. Mao wasn't just wilfully ignorant, he ordered a policy of brutal repression of anyone who tried to point out there was a problem with his policies. He either killed, imprisoned or forced into hiding the engineers who might have told him how to make iron that was useful as opposed to the useless lumps that he oversaw the production of. He did the same to those who might have been able to irrigate the fields for him.
He presided over a policy of torture and execution to keep the population on the mad course he had set out.
To say his primary aim was to feed the cities and it was a mistake seems to blur the lines between genuine error and moral failing.
I think there is an argument that Stalin really did want to starve the Ukraine in order to suppress nationalism. Even if that wasn't the motivation, similar moral failings as Mao's can be ascribed to him.
The bombing civilian parallel is perhaps a good one. At the extremes one might take every care to avoid "collateral damage" but nevertheless encounter it - or deliberately bomb civilians as a primary aim. But there are some positions in between.
One might bomb roughly in the area of troop movements, knowing that quite a lot of civilians will be caught. Or one might believe for no good reason that troops are in a particular area and bomb it intensively, describing the schools and hospitals as unfortunate unintended collateral damage.
To say that these cases were simply unintended consequences of war would be an economy of truth.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Croesus:
quote:
The underlying premise here is that absent Christianity, no one would feel compassion for "the vulnerable".
No it's not, at least not in my book. It is a plain fact that non-religious people feel compassion, and I would never deny that. So can we put that canard to rest?
What I say is that absent some believable context (e.g. christianity) which make compassion for the weak a central and ultimately victorious cause, it is not irrational to withold it, and it my well be irrational to campaign for it.
Look at it this way. Dawkins said in an interview that nature provides him no raw material for building a case for compassion, but that doesn't stop him adopting it. Fine.
And so long as he doesn't seek to impose his non evidence-based beliefs on others, he is doing nothing inconsistent with his basic position.
But if he were to strongly advocate his non evidence based views as Right (TM) and strive to ensure that a Nietzschian view of reality does not gain the upper hand, then I wonder on what basis he does this?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I don't understand how you draw the dichotomy, anteater.
If it is rational to be compassionate, then it is rational to ensure society runs on a compassionate basis.
It is not rational to value your right to be free of my compassionate values over the right of your intended victim to live in a compassionate world.
If we accept that atheists have a basis for compassion it follows that they have a basis for intervening to prevent harm resulting to the objects of their compassion.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
unintentional famine
I don't think that what is described regarding the concentration-camp-like conditions under the great leap forward and the wanton destruction of society can be described as unintentional famine.
Well quite - remembering also that a number of countries have condemned Stalin's policies in Ukraine as crimes against humanity. For a popular introduction to the issue see here or Google Holdomor for more references.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If we accept that atheists have a basis for compassion it follows that they have a basis for intervening to prevent harm resulting to the objects of their compassion.
You don't need (much of) a basis for your personal wishes. So if you want to spend your money on donkey sanctuaries, and seeing the happy donkeys in their sanctuaries makes you happy, then all the justification you need for that is that it makes you happy. If you want to convince somebody else to give to donkey sanctuaries, let alone get donkey sanctuaries funded out of public spending, then you need to offer other people reasons that they can accept.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
On the other hand if you find that enough people agree with your preference that donkeys are well treated you have a democratic mandate for a law protecting donkeys from ill-treatment and for some public funding for donkey sanctuaries.
You don't have to feel that because you can't argue from a priori first principles to your preference in favour of animal welfare that you can't enact any legislation.
The alternative is to argue that God is the right and proper basis for coercive legislation, irrespective of everyone else's views on him/her/it.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It seems very odd to argue that compassion is rational, since it seems to be a feeling. Can feelings be rational? On the other hand, I would not describe it as irrational, as that is pejorative.
I'm not sure either that you have to get bogged down in arguments about what is right - you can argue for what you want. That is clearly not rational, but then it would be useful to bear Hume's dictum on one's banner - reason is the slave of the passions.
Of course, then it's possible, even likely, that non-compassion may also win support - see the British government!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
