▶ David Silverman Denies That The Holocaust Was Objectively Wrong

Posted by UncommonSense 8 years, 10 months ago to Culture
35 comments | Share | Flag

Christianity versus atheism. This is a great debate.

SOURCE URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5B-0dzDzkw


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by khalling 8 years, 10 months ago
    GHBs! they are both wrong. Objective morality can be derived through reason. Relative morality, of course, immediately must ground itself (tether itself) to society or whatever our whims are. It is interesting to show that libertarians can also choose the moral relativism argument. One need not look further than Hayek-who said it's impossible to use reason to judge a society.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 10 months ago
      Not to deviate too far from evaluating the morality of Hitler, let's look at his buddy Stalin - I would argue that if it wasn't for Stalin's murderous methods and agendas, the Soviet Union, or at least the European part, would have bee conquered by his buddy Hitler and Europe would have remained under the Nazi rule for at least several generations. So, was he "moral" for sacrificing the present for the future?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 8 years, 10 months ago
        totally disagree. first, his "murderous methods" included killing off his best generals just as WWII started. second, if he hadn't used these methods before WWII, then it's possible Hitler might not have decided to attack, because Russia might have had a thriving economy and modern army. Instead, the US bailed Russia out and slowed our ability to knock out HItler. If you want to do speculative History, don't we have to take all potential consequences of assumptions into account? :)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 10 months ago
          That is the popular history. Facts are somewhat different. Stalin did not kill off his best generals – he killed off the dead wood that accumulated through Party politics. Many of the good officers were jailed, but released and sent to the Front with full rank and often promotions. I am certainly not proposing to canonize Stalin, but using him as an example of relative morality. Ayn Rand argued that “moral” is the action that leads to better results in the end. This is one outlier that may be of interest to consider.
          As for Stalin’s methods before the war, given where Russia had started from after the Civil War in the mid-twenties, even, hypothetically, if they had reverted to a complete capitalist system (which would not have been possible given the mindset, education and overall development level of the surviving Russian population), they could not have achieved the very formidable military machine that Stalin was able to build by 1941. Do not underestimate that machine and that achievement – Soviet propagandists spent decades convincing the West that Russia was a disarmed victim. On the contrary, the Soviets were planning on attacking Germany and Hitler simply pre-empted them; their loses were very much akin to the Arabs’ in 1967. The fact that they recovered speaks volumes of their reserves and the size of their machine. In the first week of war, the Germans destroyed more Soviet hardware than the entire Germany had at that time, and it was all but irrelevant in the long run. The US and British help started coming in only when it became clear that Stalin will recover; the most valuable aid was food, trucks and aviation gasoline, but most of the hardware – tanks, artillery, aircraft, shells and fuel – were Russian.
          Without Stalin, Russia would likely had been a prosperous country meeting the same end as Czechoslovakia.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 8 years, 10 months ago
            "Ayn Rand argued that “moral” is the action that leads to better results in the end."
            this is NOT what Rand stood for at all. you are speaking of utilitarianism. Rand was completely opposed to such thinking and for exactly the reason you are using it here. Justifying the murders of 10s of miliions because it may have a "good" result some time later. Morality begins by the rights of the individuals. It is never justified by the "rights" of a group "Europeans" or thing, "the planet." That would be saying that every Russian citizen pre-WWII was a sacrificial animal.

            "If a man believes that the good is intrinsic in certain actions, he will not hesitate to force others to perform them. If he believes that the human benefit or injury caused by such actions is of no significance, he will regard a sea of blood as of no significance. If he believes that the beneficiaries of such actions are irrelevant (or interchangeable), he will regard wholesale slaughter as his moral duty in the service of a “higher” good. It is the intrinsic theory of values that produces a Robespierre, a Lenin, a Stalin, or a Hitler. It is not an accident that Eichmann was a Kantian." AR, Intrinsic Theory of Values, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 10 months ago
              I'm sure that you can see that I am not arguing for moral acceptance of Stalin... I am trying to explore what is objective and what is subjective when it comes to morality. Not sure if the answer is always clear, as evidenced by the above video. Ayn Rand's moral perspectives make clear sense to me in most situations; however, there are those where one wants to question the black and white approach. I think it would be a benefit to many here to explore those situations, if for no other reason than to better understand the principles for ourselves.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 8 years, 10 months ago
                absolutely understand. I'm grounding your exploration in Objectivism. and the Stalin example is a clear example of black and white. Can you give us another example then?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 10 months ago
                  I like the Socrates method of discussing the extremes...
                  AR talked about this, and perhaps I need to review it, since it is unclear to me - self-sacrifice (literally) for a person that you love. Yes or no?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by khalling 8 years, 10 months ago
                    yes. However that is personal sacrifice for another individual-never a group. Groups are floating abstractions. Let me find you her words on this.
                    "Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members."

                    still looking. The example was-if my death would allow the person I most loved live, I might -however, the choice was bounded by if this person died-my life would lose purpose and meaning to such an extent that I would no longer want to live. There were strict boundaries. If personal unhappiness can not be overcome, and one is miserable, what choices are at hand. There is an interesting Cohen piece on this. hold on-found it. This is about Robin William's suicide: http://atlassociety.org/commentary/comme...
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 10 months ago
                      I didn't have a suicide in mind, when one stops valuing his life; more like taking a bullet to protect the one you love. Or, if you want to get into moral issues that are really difficult to resolve, think of "Sophie's Choice" - which would you pick to live - your son or your daughter? And can one remain sane after that?
                      In the previous comment, I didn't clearly or correctly express my thoughts - AR did not justify the means to reach an end. She considered the real end, the fruitful and healthy continuation of the species as the measure of morality. So my comment didn't sound right. And perhaps it still doesn't. The point I'm trying to formulate is that often our only defensible measures of morality are subjective.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 8 years, 10 months ago
            Regarding the economy of the USSR, you really need to read Professor Antony Sutton's work on who financed the USSR's industry from the '20's onward: Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development (in three volumes)

            Stalin built nothing. American engineers and LOTS of Rockefeller $$ did for Stalin.

            The question is: WHY were we NOT taught this in high school?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 10 months ago
              I have not read the referenced work, but do know the history of the period well. I would argue that the above is a very unfair assessment. The Soviets have purchased, leased and stolen any technology that they could, but they also paid for it, mostly in natural resources - lumber, ores, foodstuffs and fuel. To claim that Stalin had no part in the Soviet industrialization is like claiming that Reagan had no part in the US revival. He was a murderer, a despot, killed more of his own citizens than the Nazis, but he was certainly responsible for the industrialization programs and the buildup of the most powerful military machine in the world at that time, at least in terms of technology (the abysmal leadership of the Soviet forces is another story). Now, given that Soviet military technology was years ahead of anyone else's, it is difficult to say that it was built by someone else who did not have that technology, wouldn't it? For example, the T34 had a 500 hp diesel engine - the most powerful competitors barely had 200 hp gas engines; it's armor was impenetrable by anything but the very heaviest cannons (when as British and US tanks at the time would light up from hand-held rifles and German tanks were tin boxes) and had over twice the speed of the competitors. And the Soviets had more T34's (and thousands of other types) in 1941 than Germany had all of all types (which were all vastly inferior) combined. The Soviet aircraft were on-par with the German machines, but the Soviets had at least 10 times as many. We can go on, but I think that the point should be clear - the Soviet military technology superseded their competitors in almost all areas (except for the navy, of course, having a mostly land-based mentality). Where the Soviets failed miserably is in the personnel department, and on every level there, but the technology was very advanced and built there.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 8 years, 10 months ago
                Interesting information, however, NONE of that industrialization would have been possible if it weren't for the direct intervention by American interests in 1927. Gary Allen even references Prof. Sutton's ground-breaking work in his book "None Dare Call It A Conspiracy". The Soviet Union is a product of America, via American $$, American minds and technology. If it weren't for the factories being built in the first place, the Bolshevik Revolution would have fallen flat on its face by 1928. Both Prof. Sutton and Gary Allen explain this (especially Prof. Sutton) at great lengths using documents archived by our own State Department to prove this.

                I agree that, obviously the Soviets would have been able to figure out how to improve the technology they stole, that's not my concern or argument.

                My case is that without the direct monetary injection by traitors like John D. Rockefeller and his Chase Manhattan Bank: the American and European-Financed Bolshevik revolution and Stalin would have never happened and the wonders of Soviet technology wouldn't even be discussed.

                I strongly encourage you to read either Prof. Sutton or the book by Gary Allen for more information. I would provide some specific examples, but I have stuff packed...getting ready to move.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Thoritsu 8 years, 10 months ago
      Agreed. Lots of syllables. Not so much wisdom here. It is wholly unnecessary to assert an argument based on relative perception to establish one need not take morality from a book.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by jneilschulman 8 years, 10 months ago
    I commented on YouTube:

    Both sides in this debate take sides in a false dichotomy. There is objective morality but it derives from ontological axioms, not religious writings. Morality is deduced, not handed down from authority. It's a necessary part of being human rather than subhuman.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by salta 8 years, 10 months ago
    Many comments here are claiming that, because we in the Gulch build our morality by applying reason to objective reality, we have developed an "objective morality".

    But as we all know, today there are (for example) many who think it is highly moral to increase tax on some people to support others on welfare etc, and they will defend those values against any amount of reason we put up.

    Surely that defines morality as subjective. More than that, by claiming ours is "objective", we are just causing their position to be more entrenched. It might give us a short hit of superiority, but it does not help change other's sense of values. If their first hurdle to start thinking about our self-responsible morality is to completely surrender, it won't happen, people never do that, do you?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ sjatkins 8 years, 10 months ago
      Cherry picking things people say are moral, whether they are or not, as an example of how morality cannot be objective makes no sense as an argument. Care to try again? Actually I did "surrender" what I thought was the case and basis of values when I encountered objectivism and later other ethical philosophy and thought it through. That most people will not think it through or go through the hard letting go sometimes involved is also not a valid argument that no objective ethics is possible.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by salta 8 years, 10 months ago
        Yes, an example of a very different strongly held sense of morals is a good demonstration of the subjectivity of morality. Care to explain why you think it makes no sense?
        We make a subjective choice to base our morality on objective reality and reason. That is still our subjective choice. Do you think you have no choice about what things you value most?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by smichael9 8 years, 10 months ago
    This is a fascinating discussion. Any argument between Christianity and Atheism always expands to fill the void that exists between the two in every facet of life. These arguments never seem to have an end game in sight, since every argument has a counter argument that can't be resolved against a common morality. My personal concept of morality is subjective, based on my personal beliefs of reason, fair play, personal liberty and an inherent sense of good and evil. I realize that everyone has his/her own concept of morality which may differ greatly than mine. It's a fool's errand to argue, neither viewpoint will ever concede to the other.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 10 months ago
      Most "debates" I've seen between Christianity and atheism make unwarranted assumptions about what the atheist believes (other than no god). A common example is to assume that Communism is the (only) atheist position. I don't think this method is valid no matter who employs it. In the end, before you can soundly argue either for or against somebody else's morality, I believe you really need to find its axioms (and the theorems it uses to infer other things from them) and support or attack that structure.

      Naturally, it can be somewhat futile to attempt this if the other guy doesn't want to explain his reasoning.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by salta 8 years, 10 months ago
    Of course morality is subjective, it is based on values which come from within the mind, so must be subjective.

    We in the Gulch have a morality based on reason, with life and liberty as ultimate values. We believe our morality is superior, but every person believes their own morals/values are superior to others, that why they hold them.

    Other people's morality would not concern us if we had a fully objective system of Law (protecting life and liberty). But once the Law gets into the morality business (deciding for us what is the "right" thing) it becomes subjective as well.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Zero 8 years, 10 months ago
      Y'know, Salta, the core premise of OBJ'sm is not only that Objective Reality exists, but that an Objective Morality can be deduced from it.

      Moral Relativism is an OBJ'st pejorative.

      As for the Law getting into the morality business - you have the right to be wrong so long as you don't hurt others.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ sjatkins 8 years, 10 months ago
      No. Rational ethics are based upon the relevant facts of reality - the nature of human beings and what our prime means of survival and thriving are. Objectivism soundly rejects the notion that morality, that is any remotely rational and effective ethical system, is or can be subjective.

      That something is based on abstractions does not at all mean it is subjective!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 10 months ago
    The reason why this argument is so convoluted is that Silverman has not clarified his basic premises. If he had been given the opportunity to do that, it would have eliminated most of his opposition's arguments.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by jtrikakis 8 years, 10 months ago
    I usually don't listen to Christian Apologias since I don't have to defend God. He is more capable of taking care of him self. I've learned and continue to learn that God's way always works. He is totally objective.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ sjatkins 8 years, 10 months ago
      Bull. Show me the objective evidence.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by JeffG 8 years, 10 months ago
        ‘Sjatkins’ that sounded good at first but it is a self-refuting request. To request “objective evidence” from a man who already stated he believes in “Jesus who is God” is a self-refuting request because from his statement we logically infer he believes in the Bible.
        The definition of “objective” when used as an adjective includes both “not influenced by personal feelings” and “based on facts” (ref. Dictionary.com).
        To the Christian, the entire Bible taken in context as a whole, is the absolute moral standard. Yet the Bible defines itself as being the “absolute fact” of an “entirely personal Creator.” Thus, the request is self-refuting.
        Based on both Silverman’s and the other guy’s testimonies in that clip, it is impossible to have “objective morality” because both their definitions are based upon personal feelings. Likewise, ‘jtrikakis’ can’t show you objective evidence when he believes in a personal Creator. I suspect, by definition, he meant God is totally "just" in all He does.
        Based on the objective data in this blog, I can’t determine if ‘sjatkins’ responded negatively to ‘jtrikaikis’ comment for saying God is "objective" or for meaning God is "just."
        Regardless, “bull” is short for a vulgarity – we’re all in the Gultch together, let’s be allies. On that note, ‘jtrikaikis’, it is apparent you have strong beliefs, maybe that’s a reason to show/share them with ‘sjatkins’ in a private blog thingy (obviously I don’t do much social media).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • -1
        Posted by jtrikakis 8 years, 10 months ago
        I have no reason to show you a thing. It's your choice to believe and do as you see fit. I just know what is right and wrong and I get that from God who is Jesus.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo