Though I don't like to assume that any group or action is inherently evil, I will assume that the Nazis were evil, though you can check out my posts, The Face of Evil, and A Society of Evil Faces for my views of "true evil." In assuming that the Nazis were evil, I can take the point that Darwins important scientific discovery actually caused genocide.
Nazis believed that they were aiding evolution by killing "inferior" humans in order for those who are superior to succeed. I can't help but wonder what Darwin would have thought of this. I think the reason that this theory caused so much horror (Nazism and American Eugenics) was that, to some, it disproved god (though I am not sure if I agree with that). That is the problem with science; it gives us power over our lives in a way that humans have never felt before. As an agnostic, I have had to accept a series of inherent principles of good and wrong. Without them, I would be lost. It terrifies me that other atheists and agnostics (arguably including Hitler) may not subscribe to the same idea of right and wrong.
It's flat out inaccurate to say Darwin's theory caused the holocaust, or that Darwin was "responsible" for it. Darwin was, in fact, racist (just like almost every other white guy of his time), and so he did believe that whites were superior to blacks and mixing with lesser genes may harm the human species to some degree. However, he didn't believe it was practical or good to mandate who would reproduce with who in order to better the human genome. The ideas of social Darwinism originate from before he even wrote 'On the Origin of Species' from a man named Herbert Spencer. Darwin's ideas were not really of social Darwinism, his book just described natural selection/evolution. Herbert Spencer later took Darwin's ideas after they were published, distorted them, and misapplied them, using them to support his own views (might makes right, moral right = what is natural). In reality, there are very few similarities between social Darwinism (an ethical theory) and Darwinism (a scientific theory).
ReplyDeleteThe Holocaust was yet another huge bastardization of science. Hitler tried to make the case that Germans were the purest root of the "Aryan race," which is unsupportable. Prejudiced scientists found inaccurate data which was interpreted to the erroneous conclusion that Germans were the most advance Europeans.
By the time you get from Darwinism to Holocaust, there is very little Darwin left, and no virtually science. You can't blame Darwin, the founder of one of the most brilliant and important scientific theories of all time, for something as insane and immoral as the holocaust, just because some people misapplied his theory to fit their own agendas. It's true that science has been used for the justification of extreme prejudices against different races, as well as against women. But science eventually debunked those ideas when people let those prejudices go. The fact that we have so much prejudice today seems to be the result of peoples' inclinations towards lingering mythical ideas rather than scientific ones.
"and no virtually science"
ReplyDelete*and virtually no science. oops.
Actually, many Nazis and eugenicists quoted Darwin. In fact, his theory was the basis for the holocaust; the idea was to speed up the evolutionary process.
ReplyDeleteIt would be daft to claim that Darwin wanted this to happen, but it was based on his claims. If I accidentally kill, it is still manslaughter. What I am saying is that Darwin may not have wanted to cause it, but regardless of his desires, he did play an integral part.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCertainly Darwin's theory played a part, but very indirectly. It may have helped shape how humans thought of themselves at the time, but Nazi philosophy was based on something much, much different from Darwin's actual theory. The theory was completely misapplied.
ReplyDeleteWhat I disagree with is the blame you're laying on Darwin with the words "caused" and "responsible." One can't be responsible for other peoples' misinterpretation of information. If I were to say 'African Americans make up a higher percentage of incarcerated people than any other race" and then someone were to use that fact and say, "Well, that's just because African Americans are violent criminals and an inferior race," their conclusion is completely out of my hands. There is some cause and effect-- if I hadn't mentioned that statistic, I would not have gotten the response, but that doesn't make the response my fault even still.
Guilt by association is needless. You use manslaughter as a metaphor for Darwin's accidental responsibility, but Darwin didn't accidentally kill anyone. He performed no action that led to the death of other people. He merely published a theory. Should we blame prison analysts who come up with statistics for causing people to be racist? What about any other scientist? If someone uses misinterpretations of a religion to perform acts of violence, is that religion and its followers responsible?
Just because something was someones fault doesn't mean that they did anything reprehensible. Franz Ferdinand was the cause of World War I and I definitely don't blame him for getting killed. I'm not saying that we should hold Darwin in a negatively responsible way, just that his theory was a major cause of the catastrophe that was the holocaust.
ReplyDeleteIt is undeniable that Darwin's theories formed the basis for Nazi beliefs. I don't blame Darwin for the way his theories were applied, I think he tried his best, hence the title of the post.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete**agghhh sorry. fail...
ReplyDeleteI was wrong about whether you incorrectly used the word ‘responsible’ if you meant it to mean just ‘a significant cause’ earlier. However, in your recent comment that describes WWI as being someone’s “fault,” you are indeed implying personal responsibility, which I think is very inaccurate.
Ferdinand didn’t cause WWI (especially not as "the cause")—rather, his assassination (and perhaps policies—honestly I don’t know) was one of tons of other causes. There is a difference between the noun, “a cause,” and the verb, ‘to cause.’ ‘To cause’ something and have it be your “fault” implies personal responsibility and accountability. But to be a cause of something doesn’t necessarily make it your fault (it’s not a butterfly’s fault if it causes a hurricane, for the sake of a ridiculous example). How can a dead man be responsible for a war, and how can an assassination have personal responsibility and accountability? A person’s death can be “a cause” and it can also be “responsible” for a war (if when you say ‘responsible’ you only mean ‘be a significant cause’), but it cannot be at fault.
Similarly, like the earlier example, a prison analyst is not at fault, nor is it their fault, if someone misinterprets their data to come to a racist conclusion. They cannot be accountable for racist conclusions, so they are not responsible. Therefore, it is not their “fault,” because the word “fault” implies responsibility.
And that’s why it completely misses the point to say, “Just because something was someone’s fault doesn't mean that they did anything reprehensible.” You are absolutely right in saying degree of fault/responsibility has nothing to do with how reprehensible an act is (one is equally responsible for making someone late as killing a pedestrian with a car). But I didn't argue "Darwin didn't do anything reprehensible so he was blameless." I argued that you can't hold Darwin at "fault"-- as in personally accountable/responsible-- for something he was would have despised, that he only was connected to via misinterpretation, and that he was dead during.
Can a dead man really be responsible for something that happens after he’s dead that he would have objected to if he were alive? Or along similar lines, is the entire American public at fault if they elect a president who runs inhumane covert ops? And again, is a prison statistician responsible if people were to take their statistics out of context? These are all very similar scenarios.