Replies

You’re over thinking. I wasn’t offended. I was amused.

Whatever emotion you call it, it is obvious you disagreed, and tried humor to mock his view while mis-characterizing it. While I wasn't going to rake you over the coals for your misstatement, you just invited it. So you should say ouch a few times and perhaps we could move on.

On a naturalist view, how should nazism et al actually offend us?

My contention is that naturalism gives no support of the notion of "should" in that sentence.

"Whatever emotion you call it, it is obvious you disagreed, and tried humor to mock his view while mis-characterizing it. While I wasn't going to rake you over the coals for your misstatement, you just invited it. So you should say ouch a few times and perhaps we could move on."

If you noticed it was humor, then why did imagine I was offended? It is difficult to be offended by absurdity, and the post is patently absurd. Attempting to draw connections between the age old and unchanged behavior of humans on one instance of scientific discovery is... well... silly. It is the equivalent of me blaming the despotism and genocide of the previous two thousand years on Jesus.

If we are to get angry at a particular science, perhaps you should get all ferklempt over physics rather than biology. After all, the only reason that Nazis and Stalinists were more efficient killers than Mullahs and Popes is that physics gave them better weapons.

And even then it was the religiously motivated Islamic invasion of the Indian Subcontinent that still stands as the greatest mass genocide in all of history.

"On a naturalist view, how should nazism et al actually offend us?"

What an odd question. It should offend us because we possess empathy and understand that what we do not want to happen to us is thereby wrong. I think most people start figuring that out by about age 5. It has never been particularly difficult.

The problem comes when people start proposing moral systems based not on empathy but on "revealed truth." That's when we are most dangerous as a species, because that's when we get God's permission to do unto others that which we would never want done unto us.

"My contention is that naturalism gives no support of the notion of "should" in that sentence."

It is not a contention that you will find easy to defend.

Now... timing is awful because I'm about to head out for free beer Thursday at the University Club with my wife for dinner. So if you want a longer debate on this issue, I'd love to play. But I probably won't be able to get back to the thread until much later tonight.

Ciao.