Godless ethics led to Nazism: Nile
Offline
Conservative crossbench Australian state MP Fred Nile has introduced his private member's bill to abolish school ethics classes, arguing the course is based on a philosophy linked to Nazism and communism.
The Christian Democratic Party MP told the upper house his bill would abolish ethics classes in public schools at the end of this school year, saying that with just 2700 students enrolled, the program had been a failure.
Ethics classes were introduced by the former Labor government as an alternative for children who did not want to attend traditional scripture classes.
The Reverend Nile provoked anger among Greens and Labor MPs when he said the "dangerous" secular humanist philosophy taught in the ethics course had led to the worst atrocities committed during World War II.
"It's relative ethics, which is the basis of secular humanism and I believe ... this is the philosophy we saw during World War II with the Nazis and with the communists," Mr Nile told the Legislative Council today.
"Situation ethics, as I see it, was followed by other regimes such as the Nazis and communists.
"Situation ethics means nothing is right and nothing is wrong ... Therefore, you can kill human beings without any embarrassment and any reservations.
"It's a very dangerous philosophy."
Mr Nile had threatened to withdraw his support for the government's public-sector wage changes if it did not abandon the school ethics classes.
However, Premier Barry O'Farrell negotiated a truce last week by promising to have Mr Nile's private member's bill considered by the Coalition party room and cabinet.
Mr O'Farrell has repeatedly said the government had no intention of breaking an election pledge and scrapping the ethics classes.
In his speech to the upper house on Friday, Mr Nile denied blackmailing the O'Farrell government over the ethics classes, and said the issue of the industrial relations changes was not even raised at the meeting last Thursday.
"I have not sought to blackmail the Coalition government," he said.
"I simply reminded them before they flatly rejected my ethics repeal bill that they should consult and they need our votes to pass their legislation, particularly the controversial industrial legislation."
Debate on Mr Nile's bill has been adjourned to September 16.
Greens and Labor MPs said the government's decision to allow the early introduction of the ethics bill today was a sign a deal had been reached to ensure Mr Nile's support for their public sector wages cap.
"Barry O'Farrell continuously denies he has a deal with Fred Nile, but today we saw what looked like the first downpayment on what is 30 pieces of silver," Greens MP John Kaye said.
Opposition Leader John Robertson said Mr Nile's comments showed how ridiculous the debate on ethics had become.
"Fred Nile's comments like that just show the sheer desperation and how ludicrous the debate is when it comes to ethics," he said.
"I just think it's extraordinary that you'd see someone in the middle of a debate on ethics even raising Nazis and communists in that context."
Mr Robertson said it appeared Mr O'Farrell had done a deal with Mr Nile in having debate on his bill delayed until September.
"What we are seeing is more evidence in an extraordinary set of events," he said.
"This is clear evidence that there is a deal being done."
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/godless-ethics-led-to-nazism--nile-20110805-1iepq.html
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
- Login to post comments
Offline BobSpence1 wrote:Except that religious 'morality' actually records examples of some really evil acts in a Holy Book, and puts commands to commit them in the mouth of a divine being, which amounts to strongly endorsing them.
Where is the equivalent of that 'holy book' in any secular morality telling you its ok to do that sort of crap? It really goes along with getting your 'morality' from an imagined supreme being, so it's not quite compatible with secular morality.
Bob, if those couldn't be derived without religion....They wouldn't have ended up in religion.
If you needed a god to command you to do those things, they wouldn't have ended up in the bible, because god doesn't exist and couldn't have commanded them to do it. They came up with that shit themselves, I see no reason what so ever that these ideas can't pop up again in secular morality, and they have in the past.
Of course those acts didn't require a religion for them to be conceived, that was not my point. Only a religious or other equivalent authoritarian world-view could justify them.
If you like, I will make the distinction broader - ethical rules based on the edicts of a real or imagined authority figure, whether an imagined Deity, or Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or Mao Tse-Tung, the equivalent of the 'alpha-male' leader of the pack, are what can endorse or encourage that sort of act, as against those based on our natural empathy as cooperative social creatures. Both instincts are there, but one is not really about morality, but holding the group together at any cost against the 'other', which is in line with OT in particular. The other is about fostering more positive, cooperative behavior.
The Holy Books, the religious dogma, can make those cruel acts not only acceptable but actually endorse them. Once you get away from compassion, empathy, 'golden rule' based morality, you open the door to that sort of evil, which would be against any plausible version of 'first do no harm' secular morality. Any abomination can be justified once someone accepts the sovereignity of a God.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline Bob, my original point still stands. Those actions could be justified just as easily with a secular morality. Even if it's not authoritian, it could also be based on some "us vs them" viewpoint whether religious or not. So I don't see how you are arguing against my point that secular morality can justify cruelity just as easily as religious morality. The secular morality has to be "X" argument isn't working, because even if it is X, it's still secular. The Milgram experiments showed just how easily we can fall for non religious authority.
I don't think the "first do no harm" is the right way either, considering if we didn't want to cause harm, we wouldn't have fought the Nazis in the first place, because shooting them kinda harmed them. Even that is an example of wishy washy secular morality. Sometimes harm is required for the greater good.
The other point is that people don't get their morality from religion, they abscribe their morality to religion. I can't imagine them going "wow this is immoral" without religion.
I wouldn't equate secular morality "with compassion, empathy, 'golden rule' based morality". While that can be in secular morality, it can also be in religious morality. It can also be excluded from either, so once again, I don't see the argument against my point.
- Login to post comments
Offline p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }
OK Pineapple, you have missed the point. The golden rule is only part of ethical consideration. It has shortcomings. Obviously, it can't explain fighting in WW2. That being said, it is worth noting that some variation of it appears in nearly all religions and thus it must have an origin outside of a single religion.
Morality is complicated and has extensions beyond a single idea. Rabbi Hillel offered another statement that is of some use here. “Do not do to others what you would have them do to you”.
So should a guy already strapped into the electric chair be able to invoke the golden rule and thus inform the executioner that he may not pull the switch because he would not want to be in the same position? Under Hillel's line of thought, the executioner could reply, “Well, did you think about that when you killed the guy?”
BobSpence1 may correct me if I misunderstood him but secular morality is not reducible to anything like a simple sentence. Don't misunderstand me. Not messing with people sounds like a great idea but when messing is already happening, what do you do then?
Let's try a scenario on for size: There is an urban sniper who has been killing random people for a while. I know you live in Canada and don't really have that as an issue but run with the idea.
So you are minding your own business but carrying your Smith and Wesson .357, when you see the guy lining up a shot. Under the golden rule, you are required to let him kill an innocent victim. Is it a moral value to do so? Is it a greater moral value to waste him?
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."
=
- Login to post comments
Offline "First, do no harm" is the starting point. Of course, it allows for some immediate 'harm' if that is the only way to minimize harm overall. This applies most obviously, at a personal level, to addressing an injury or disease which requires some treatment which will cause immediate pain.
This obviously extends to larger conflict situation, but that can be the beginning of a 'slippery slope', especially as the 'harm' becomes more abstract, such as a nation's 'honour'.
If your morality is based on compassion, empathy, etc as the primary justifications, then it won't take you to an 'us vs. them' attitude. That come from other things, like inter-group competition, which often involves, or is fundamentally based on, conflicting religious or political dogmas. Compassion cannot take you to cruelty 'just as easily' as religion. That is nonsense. You are stretching the definition of secular morality to breaking point. Secular-based political and economic idealogies, sure, but they go beyond the context of morality, to issues of efficiency, effectiveness, and other values. Although there are linkages, bundling them all together is confusing a lot of issues.
Could you clarify just what you mean by
I can't imagine them going "wow this is immoral" without religion.
Religion gets its rules from the culture, yes, but then people are in turn strongly influenced by the rules of their religion - it goes both ways.
I know people without religion, like myself, can certainly go "wow this is immoral" without any appeal to religion, and can certainly see religion itself as immoral in many respects. Your statement actually could be seen as an endorsement of what I see as a fundamental problem with religion, which is why I would like to make sure i know what you are describing.
EDIT: And, AiG, I certainly endorse the 'negative' version of the 'Golden Rule' as superior.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }
Wow, post collision!
Anyway, call the different versions of simple rules what you will. I used Hillel as the example and you called it the negative version. The name is not all that important.
In all honesty though, a small number of simple rules can inform but not dictate to complex situations.
For the past twenty some odd years, my former job often had me in the “decision box”, sometimes a few times in a single day. Now I fully agree that harm should be minimized but that is not always going to be guided by keeping one or two or twenty rules in your head.
Sometimes you will be in a situation where you have to make a choice. You do that and hope for the best. Hours or days later, a supervisor or manager can tell you that you did not do what they would have done. However, the second guessing does not make that person morally superior because they had the luxury of taking the time to figure out what you had to do on a snap choice.
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."
=
- Login to post comments
Offline AiG,
I agree, all these 'rules' are, at best, guidelines for the sort of situations we encounter in the real world. We often don't have nearly enough information or 'calculus' or time to even theoretically work out the 'right' or the 'best' decision.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline Capn,
could you point to a specific example of what you see as a 'secular morality' that has lead to, or allowed, something really bad?
Just trying to 'get' your PoV on this. For yet one more time...
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline Bob, I think things need to be clarified here.
My original claim is that anything you can get from religious morality, you can get from secular.
You seem to be defining secular as based on compassion, empathy etc... While a secular moral views can include these [and should], it is under no obligation to do so to stay secular. I could just as easily come up with a secular moral view based on revenge and "might makes right", that wouldn't be based on compassion, but it would still be a secular worldview none the less. You need to stop thinking of secular as "compassion, empathy" etc.. because they are not required in a secular moral view.
That seems to be your main disagreement, which is just re-defining secular to mean based on compassion, empathy etc.... My point stands. Secular morality can justify cruelity just as easily as religious morality.
The "Wow, that's immoral" comment wasn't for the people watching the act, I was talking about the people commiting the act. I don't see how they would just give up if they were to ditch their religion.
Capn,
could you point to a specific example of what you see as a 'secular morality' that has lead to, or allowed, something really bad?
Just trying to 'get' your PoV on this. For yet one more time...
The usual "harm for the greater good" justifications from various secular terrorist groups, the USSR, China, etc....
The taking away of civil liberties to "combat terrorism" are another example.
- Login to post comments
Offline And just to reaffirm the anthropocentrism, the golden rule does not talk about animals, just humans (on which thing I would have another question: if 0.1 or 1 millions years from now we will not be human but another species, would the bible still applies to us?); and btw a good christian should have dominion on animals...
- Login to post comments
Offline Ok, so you are referring to any world-view and the attitudes and behaviors it encourages/inspires in its adherents, rather than systems of thought which specifically aim to define moral/ethical guidelines for personal behaviour, as their sole or major purpose.
Those other contexts do indeed have the same sort of problem as religions, esp. the Abrahamic ones, by having broader aims or beliefs which override many of the more 'natural' rules or guidelines for how to behave toward others, in your social group. This is the 'slippery slope' I referred to when you start trying to apply some sort of moral code to broader ideals, political or economic, or to behaviour between nations, religions, ethnicities, etc.
Those faiths are more relevant to what I was thinking of, as they make such a big deal about 'morality', to the point of regularly querying how anyone not following such a faith, and especially lacking belief in their God or something very similar, can even have morals of any kind worthy of calling such.
And I already acknowledged that morality based on instincts/intuitions can go toward what we think of as positive/empathic cooperative behavior, or toward authoritarian, 'alpha-male', submission to the leader, ideas. This touches on the balance between personal and group priorities.
And it is not really quite enough to simply point out that 'secular' morality can be as bad as 'religious' morality, which is true, but is one more likely or not to lead to poorer social well-being, or whatever is your ultimate standard for judging such things.
It is indeed a complex and highly subjective subject.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
I don't see what it has to do with Nazism. Also it could mean that ethics is faulty and useless. I mean, that's a classical claim from someone who is indoctrinated, and excuse me if I say so.
This from a bloke who until the most recent NSW state election, had received about 2700-odd votes at the previous 5 federal elections!
And it's even more funny, given his own 'ethical dilemmas':
http://www.electioncandidates.com.au/election-news/fred-nile-and-christian-democrats-caught-in-web-of-porn/
Take out "situational ethics" and put on "Christ's forgiveness" and you've just described Christianity as it is practiced.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Lol "situation ethics" - such as "Thou shalt not kill" followed by "Do not spare them, put to death men, women, children, and infants".
Contrary to popular belief, the Bible actually teaches subjective morality, while secular ethics are objective morality.
There are no absolute morals in the Bible, just absolute authority - so if one day God says not to kill, but the next day he tells his army to rape and murder babies and young girls, it's all fine - because there are no absolute morals - whatever God says on one day goes.
Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical
Someone is a little confused:
Whereas secular morality starts with the idea "First, do no harm". It is based in various forms on the idea of avoiding unnecessary harm, suffering, or distress to others. 'Necessary' distress would be typically any pain caused by medical treatment, surgery, to address an injury or disease or other threatening condition.
It is inspired and based on our natural compassion and empathy, not the imagined pronouncements of a 'Supreme Being', who cannot even be known to be 'good', if he even existed. Religion endorses the authoritarian model of 'morality', 'might makes right', "what I say goes", therefore is far more consistent with Hitler's approach than is any secular ethics. It lets the edicts of an authority figure override any inhibitions about killing and torture, as the Inquisition amply demonstrated, and makes disobedience of that figure's commands the ultimate crime.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
That's funny.
Religion is based on a divine command to commit countless atrocities.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
I think the point being missed here, is that people get religious morality the same place they get secular morality so religious morality isn't unique.
I can't think of anything that could be done with religious morality that can't be done with secular morality.
Religious morality does indeed come ultimately from the same source, but the problem with it is that it overlays and distorts it with a lot of extra crap from the religious dogma, generally making it inferior to the original, and replacing compassion and empathy as the basis, with the imagined decrees of a Supreme Being.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I agree that this issue over morals is nothing more than adventures in labeling. Nile is a prize goose.
About 100,000 kids in the state do not attend religious classes for various reasons.
Most spend the time stuffing about on their smart phones or are sent around their schools picking up rubbish.
Ethics should be the default class and scripture available on request - in state schools at any rate.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
http://cdn.nearlyfreespeech.net/jandmstatic/strips/2011-08-03.png
I have no problem with the words "ethics" or "morality". Where all humans get in trouble is when they try to lay claim to them as an invention of their particular label.
When you strip those words of all labels and look at them from the standpoint of evolution they mean the same core thing to our species. Doing what benefits others and oneself while avoiding harm to others or at least, that is what our species fails to recognize is going on at an evolutionary scale.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }
How about riding an army into some town, killing everyone without an intact hymen and forcing those you let live into sexual slavery?
or...
Telling a huge crowd of would be ass rapists “Don't touch the strangers I have never met but are in my house! Here, take my two virgin daughters instead...”
or...
Calling a pack of bears out of the woods to rip apart a group of teenage boys because they called you “baldie”.
Or (we can do the NT as well)...
Telling everyone in some city that for sins not specified, they will never sport wood for a women again but they can bone their best friend where he poops all they want?
=
Like I said, you can get pilage, rape and murder with secular morality too. I'm not sure it'll let you control bears though.
......wut?
Except that religious 'morality' actually records examples of some really evil acts in a Holy Book, and puts commands to commit them in the mouth of a divine being, which amounts to strongly endorsing them.
Where is the equivalent of that 'holy book' in any secular morality telling you its ok to do that sort of crap? It really goes along with getting your 'morality' from an imagined supreme being, so it's not quite compatible with secular morality.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Bob, if those couldn't be derived without religion....They wouldn't have ended up in religion.
If you needed a god to command you to do those things, they wouldn't have ended up in the bible, because god doesn't exist and couldn't have commanded them to do it. They came up with that shit themselves, I see no reason what so ever that these ideas can't pop up again in secular morality, and they have in the past.
arbitrary application of religious trademarks when it comes to human morality.
As the Captain suggests, there was morality and then there was religion.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Did you skip my post? I clearly stated that "ethics" and "morality" are not a product of a label. So of course "secular" humans can commit horrible acts on others. Why? Not because they don't believe, but because the study of humans would say no matter what label you claim, we are all capable of the same range of human emotions and actions, both good and bad.
But do not confuse the "secularism" of what religious people claim Hitler and Stalin "were". They were far from "secular". Hitler was a mix of pagan/Christianity and was his own "sect" of politics and religion. And Stalin was sectarian in politics, and used his religious background to implement the same dictatorial attitude of state. The only difference between Stalin's dictatorship and God's absolute authority is that Stalin was real and God is fiction, but both are dictators.
"Secularism" is, at least to me, the idea of government neutrality, inclusion, no favoritism on the part of government.
But ultimately "ethics" and "morality" are not inventions of labels, but what we as humans strive for. The prospect of benefit to the most with the least amount of harm to others. They are products of evolution, not religious or political labels.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }
Ah, you missed the reference.
{quote=Romans 1:27]And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Fundies love to quote that to prove that god hates gays. But even with that much, we can see what is really going on. It was divine punishment for some act of sin that a reading of the whole passage does not really specify. The KJV seems to suggest that it might have been blasphemy though.
=