Vorkosigan

Originally posted by ManM:
turtonm,

I disagree with your 'fact'. It is not a general property of those who believe authoritarian belief systems to kill those who disagree. I can quite equally say it is a general property of Christians to be kind and charitable. The reality of the situation proves us both wrong. This sort of generalization is and always will be a dead end.

I am delighted that you disagree. Please, then, explain why authoritarian belief systems such as Christianity, Communism, Islam, Facism, and so on, have such a long track record of killing. Explain why groups not founded on such belief systems do not kill.

I have already conceded your point that these belief systems also have a track record of charity. So do groups that don't have authoritarian tendencies. So what's your point? We can have all the charity we want and need, without all the killing.

Personally, I think you have something important in common with all of the groups you mentioned. That is, you claim that a certain way of thinking is dangerous and harmful to society. It logically follows that it would be good to get rid of that way of thinking, and utilitarian ethics can be used to justify all sorts of persecution on these grounds. If you wish to point fingers at a belief, that might be one to contemplate.

You're cute in your desperation. Unable to refute the fabulous bloody record of such belief systems, you switch to a personal attack. Unlike authoritarian belief systems, my own beliefs do not have an Other that can be demonized, so there is no threat to anyone else.

My personal record of commitment to democracy and human development, in the form of service in Peace Corps, and in my time with Taiwan's democracy movement, and in my lifelong habit of volunteerism, is outstanding.

As I said before, people with beliefs such as myself, who believe in democracy, due process, accountability and tolerance, do not involve themselves in mass killings. Religion, regrettably, does not emphasize any of those things.

Would I love to see religion disappear? You bet. I love the thought of no more aircraft crashing into office buildings, no more doctors being killed, no more blacks being dragged behind pickups, no more communal sectarian strife as in Indonesia, Ireland, India......but it's not going to happen. Would I move to suppress it if I had the power? No way. I believe in intellectual freedom -- as an atheist, freedom of religion is one of my most cherished rights. Additionally, practically speaking, moves to suppress religion always result in its expansion, since persecution is good for religion, and for that reason is often actively courted by religious groups. Just take a look at the rapid growth of Christianity in China and Vietnam. A recent white paper on religion by the gov't of Vietnam basically said their religious policies have failed, and even China has been grudgingly opening lately.

Now your second point takes to the extreme what I wrote to Jamie_L. Yes, religion is not necessary for morality. But I would not go so far as to call it worthless.

You are right, I should not have teased you like that. For the record, I consider religion a net evil, not a complete evil. I simply pointed out that YOUR argument, however, rendered it worthless as a moral guide.

Instead, I look at it as a roadmap. You can certainly find a destination without a map, but having a map makes it much easier. And so I fail to see how you progress from 'Religion is not necessary for morality' to 'Religion is worthless as a moral guide'.

Again, I was pointing out the consequences of the argument YOU were making.

Michael

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

ManM

turtonm,

I do not think you can necessarily deduce "I must kill those who disagree with me" from "I believe in an external authority". Also, judging by your comments you missed the point of my critique of your belief, for it answered one of your questions. Why do belief systems have such a track record of killing? I suspect the answer is a utilitarian calculation. If you believe another viewpoint is harmful to society and you combine that with utilitarian ethics, you can justify atrocity. This is a reasonable conclusion based on the following line of thought:

Just as an exercise, I'm going to try to make a connection between external authority and body count. If you believe in an external authority, I hope that you believe it is true. If it is true, then that which opposes it must be false, and those who believe in falsehood are ignorant of the truth. If you are a good classical philosopher, you believe that ignorance is the root of all evil. If so, than those who are ignorant may be harmful to society. If it would be in society's best interest to dispose of the ignorant, you might be able to justify atrocity. So yes, you can get to atrocity from external authority. But you don't have to be a good classical philosopher. 'Ignorance is the root of evil' does not logically follow from 'that which opposes authority is wrong'. It could very well be the case that you tolerate ignorance. In that situation, there could be an external authority with no justification for atrocity. And so, the way the argument swings seems to be dependent on the interplay between ignorance, evil, and utilitarian calculation, not external authority.

I cannot derive a set of statements where atrocity necessarily follows from authoritarian belief. If you can do so, please enlighten me.

Moving on, you continue to claim that you have shown religion to be worthless as a moral guide based on my conclusions. I need some justification, so could you provide a set of statements outlining how you get from 'Religion is not necessary for morality' to 'Religion is worthless as a moral guide'? I don't think you can say something unnecessary is worthless. For someone with a compass, a roadmap might be unnecessary. Yet, the map still would have value, even to one with a compass.

echidna

Granted. However atheism does encompass as broad a range of moral behaviour as Xianity. Maybe I’m fortunate that I have no close contact with fundamentalists, however I know many liberal Xians & very few I would describe as immoral. Similarly my atheist & agnostic acquaintances I generally find moral people. And yet in each group there are clearly those who I would describe as holding immoral views, whether they are from an authoritarian source or from a personal one. It matters not, the immorality if grouped and organised will manifest itself as immoral behaviour. Atheistic racism, atheistic cruelty do exist. I fail to see how one’s source of morality be it authoritarian or personal is any better guarantee of moral behaviour.

The classic mass atrocities listed in this thread are results of what one may simplistically refer to as "mob madness". True, the Nazis were only a relatively small group, however they manipulated a nation to commit atrocity.

There is a mob mentality present in us all, that we want to be accepted as a group, that in a group we can absolve ourselves of our individual responsibility and simply follow the will of the crowd.

It’s this which historically has be used by small groups such as the Nazis to manipulate a population such the Germans to act immorally.

A milder recent case in point here might be Australia’s negative public attitude towards refugees.

There is no one justifying hatred or rejection from any authoritarian basis. It is being done on purely pragmatic secular grounds. And the result has been a very unpleasant upsurge of racism, bigotry and violence. I think the US has also experienced similar. No organisation or authoritarianism even necessary, just human nature banding together xenophobically. True, racism is ugliest when it can be given a name like KKK or the Nazis, however it needs no authoritarianism to occur.

Vorkosigan

Originally posted by ManM:
turtonm,
I do not think you can necessarily deduce "I must kill those who disagree with me" from "I believe in an external authority".

As you'll see below, it is not a straight-line deduction, but fallout from the way authoritarian systems work.

Also, judging by your comments you missed the point of my critique of your belief, for it answered one of your questions. Why do belief systems have such a track record of killing? I suspect the answer is a utilitarian calculation.

You're right, I did miss that. But utilitarian calculation is incorrect, I think. Authority always attempts to devalue what is individual and human while exalting the external and inhuman. It frequently identifies Others to demonize. It provides moral sanction for violence. Authority also romanticizes and glorifies violence; the genocide fantasies of the Left Behind series, or the Christian fantasies of Hell (more and more unpopular in our democratic society), are functionally equivalent to the speeches of Hitler or Mussolini arguing that Facism means continuous war, or speeches by Communist theorists that political change grows from the barrel of a gun.

Organizationally speaking, authoritarianism allows and even encourages individuals with more radical tendencies/solutions to rise to higher positions, whereas in a democratic organization, centrist tendencies prevent radicals from rising to positions of authority. For example, one of the forces driving the Final Solution was the promotion of radicals within Nazi ranks, since their nasty solutions appealed to Hitler. Under authoritarianism, power is centralized and tends to be both inefficient and arbitrary. Because authority operates on a personal and charismatic basis, it tends to create new organizations under powerful individuals that pursue their own goals and are not restrained by law or custom. Killing is the hardly surprising result.

And so on. I needn't list all the errors of authoritarianism. Christianity kills not just because it is fundamentally a form of inhuman ethical nihilism under which human beings are damned and the supernatural is glorified, but also because it is an authoritarian belief system. Note that those Christian subsects that have given up this authority belief, such as Quakerism, are extremely progressive, pacifist and anti-authoritarian. They are also far more humane. Of course, the authoritarian forms of Christianity criticize them as "un-Christian." A backhanded compliment if ever there was one.

I cannot derive a set of statements where atrocity necessarily follows from authoritarian belief. If you can do so, please enlighten me.

"I can't explain it" does not equal "There is no explanation." The fact you are unable to derive any set of statements is not relevant to the correctness of my arguments, for simply viewing history shows that authoritarian systems almost always end up killing outsiders and insiders who've had a falling out with authority. You may not be able to explain why to your own satisfaction, but it is a fact of history that authoritarianism involves killing. There are very, very few authoritarian systems where socio-political killings have not occurred.

Moving on, you continue to claim that you have shown religion to be worthless as a moral guide based on my conclusions.

I didn't show it, you did. You argued that the problem with religous killing lay with human nature and not the religious belief. This is tantamount to arguing that religious belief is irrelevant to human behavior -- in other words, that Christian moral training is worthless.

Michael

Rhea

TWEEEEEET!!!!!! (referee's whistle)

I would like to just stop and take a pause because the original topic has reared it's head again. This good discussion has highlighted some important arguments, but still remains the original question. I would love to hear specific comments on this...

Here is the very argument on which I want to form an opinion. To wit: Why can we say that Communism is founded on authoritarianism, but is not closely related to Atheism.

I know it has been touched on by many in this thread already (and I am improved by it), but hear me out. Tell me where are the flaws in my understanding, as I try to make a cohesive short argument. Sorry I can't do a nifty indented else-if presentation.


==================================
ARGUMENT FROM CHRISTIAN: Atheism has killed more people than religion ever did. Examples: Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedung (if I have those right)

REBUTTAL:
- Atheism has not been the driving force of any of those actions. Atheism was not the goal. Communism/Authoritarianism, was the goal. (COUNTER: prove it (rebuttal: Can I?))
- You would be more correct to say, Authoritarianism has killed more people than democracy ever did. But you must then acknowledge that religion is authoritarian, and atheism is not. You may also note that communism and fascism are also authoritarian. (COUNTER: communism is not authoritarian by nature any more than atheism is. (I have no rebuttal for this?))

COUNTER:
- Atheism could be authoritarian if it were attempted to be the ruling principle. (REBUTTAL: Atheism does not want to be the ruling principle, it would prefer secularism (COUNTER: there is nothing in atheism's "doctrine" to ensure this)
- Atheism/Secularism has no track record. It would probably be just as bad as anything else.
=============================================

So you can see some of the holes in my understanding of the argument. I personally do not feel that I can, even to myself, refute the original argument yet.


Thanks so much for all of the discussion, I am _much_ further to understanding than I was!

(edited for speling)

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Rhea ]</p>

brighid

The problem I think people are having is the possible broad interpretation of atheism – they allow it to encompass too much. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god – nothing more and nothing less. Most atheists have a secular humanist moral stance and in order to attack the morality or immorality of an atheist one must examine the moral system of those specific people who lack a belief in god. That conclusion must also be done without make generalization about the moral stance of ALL atheists when there is no cohesive code or dogma that binds their morality. We can’t make the claim that a lack in the belief of a god is what led some who pushed atheism to commit mass murder. There is no moral correlation, even though theists attempt to make the connection that a lack of belief in a god equates to an immoral character and a propensity to immoral acts such as murder. However, we can examine religion, it’s cohesive dogmas, rules, regulations and traditions to discern whether or not there is evidence that genocidal and murderous motivation can be found in Scripture and thereby place partial responsibility where it exists.

Authoritarian governments (such as Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany) and authoritarian institutions (Catholic and Protestant Churches) have a common desire – strict loyalty to their idols – in both cases the divinely developed mythos of different men (Stalin, Hitler and Jesus). In each case all of these authoritarian institutions and government did not tolerate anything or anyone interfering with the absolute loyalty of the masses to its idol. Any one who dissented or criticized their ideologies and methods were killed. The Churches have an insanely long history of doing this – some periods of time more violently than others – but none the less no different then Stalin of Hitler. Except perhaps that Hitler and Stalin’s reign of terror was much shorter and because of conventional weapons far more deadly than that of the Church, it’s Inquisitions and Crusades, etc. Imagine if the Crusaders had Stinger missles, tanks, bombs and automatic weapons? The belief in a god has not stopped authoritarian institutions or governments from murdering innocents. It still doesn’t. Therefore it cannot be used as an equitable foundation for a moral stance that encompasses compassion, equality or the prohibition of cruelty or murder.

We can also look to what governments in our modern times are authoritarian to see those examples continue on and provide support that power is the corrupter – even of peaceful philosophies and religions. Look at every Islamic theocracy – is there a democratic nation amongst them and aren’t the majority authoritarian and considered extremely oppressive by modern democratic and secular terms? We can also look to those areas in our modern world that are embroiled in conflict and see common denominators – all too often it is religious factions fighting one another based on little more than the other is of a differing faith and therefore and unbeliever or heathen – all justified within their holy texts to fight and kill the unbeliever.

I don’t believe a link can be made with murder and a lack of belief in a god. But, by the admission of the holy texts of the Big Three (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) we can find support from their god(s) that war and murder is justifiable when it is against the infidel or unbeliever and worse yet that such things are divinely ordered and even considered the duty of a good “believer.” You cannot find that within the simple and ONLY principle of atheism and it’s lack of belief. Nor will you find that kind of principle within the base of secular humanism. Secular Humanism doesn’t devalue the life of another human being simply because they believe differently, where as the demonization and degradation of human life of the unbeliever is prevalent, has a long and bloody history and condoned by Abrahamic faiths. Therefore a correlation can be made between the motivations and justifications for those who have murdered and committed genocide within religion and couple that with the absolute power of authoritarianism and you get an awfully powerful combination of divinely inspired hated fueling the desire for power and control as it uses murder, torture and terror as it’s angels of death.

You cannot murder someone you value as your equal and until religion moves beyond their ideology that one way is the right way and specifically that one interpretation of the ‘way’ is the ONLY way and by this ideology devalues all life than those in allegiance with IT – the viscous cycle will continue – as it is in Ireland, as it is in Israel, in the Sudan, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Egypt and …

It is not until free thought and true freedom for all people is the governing ideology behind world philosophies that we will begin to see the elimination of authoritarian institutions that require absolute allegiance or death!

ManM

turtonm,

Now you seem to be in agreement with me. Basically, you give a great criticism of various types of external authority based on deontological ethics. I did as much in my last post, and I think it is quite obvious to all that if a particular external authority happens to be bad, atrocity may follow. And so what you have done is provided a deontological laundry list of morality: Do not devalue the human while glorifying the inhuman. Do not demonize others. Violence is bad. Political radicalism is bad. And so from these rules, you look at some historically notorious authoritarian systems and judge them as bad. Here lays the problem. You then make an inductive leap to 'all authoritarian systems are bad'. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that, and I suspect history will support me. If there is but one case in history where an authoritarian system did not commit atrocities, your claim is falsified. Therefore, you are forced to assert that every single case of authoritarian belief has led to a high body count. I am no student of history, but this proposition sounds highly unlikely to me. Still, what you wrote may be of some use:

I find it interesting that you use the language 'almost always' instead of always. 'Almost always' implies 'not always', and therefore you have falsified your own argument.

This is why I wanted you to give a deductive argument. I know that my own inability to conceive of one does not mean it is not true, and that is why I asked you for enlightenment. But hopefully now you see why such a deductive argument is needed if you wish to assert that authoritarian systems are bad.

Moving on, I think I finally see why we are talking past each other on the religion argument. I did not intend to imply that religious belief was not a factor in historical evils. Most certainly it is a piece of the puzzle. But for reasons I have already outlined, it is impossible to say that religion is the cornerstone. If we are to look for a cornerstone, I suggest human nature. As I have written a few times before, religion may not be necessary for morality, but it is certainly not worthless.

Instead, I propose we carefully analyze the situation to determine exactly which ideas don't mix well together. One such combination involves utilitarian ethics. You start with a utopian vision. This vision could be secular or religious. Then, you add a strong desire to make that vision a current reality. Finally, if you add utilitarian ethics you can justify the means to pursue your vision. And if your vision appeals to a large group of people, the stage is set for a high body count. Given that the high body count is logically justified from the beliefs, this model is far more reasonable than an inductive criticism of authoritarian belief. Now I do not know for sure if my model is the truth of the matter, but right now it is the best I have created. Each of the pre-conditions are harmless on their own, yet if you throw them together...


Rhea,

Here is how I would handle the situation.

Has atheism killed more people than religion? Of course not. Ideas don't kill people, people kill people. So, atheism hasn't killed anyone, and neither has religion. Since that argument is a semantic move, it won't end the discussion. Most likely, the Christian will refine his complaint. Have atheists killed more people than religious folk? Ah, but this question is a simple matter of fact. Go look it up. Basically, so what if atheists happen to have killed more than religious folk? This is when you turn the argument back on the Christian. Is he trying to use body count as a critique against atheism? If so, then challenge him to show how 'I must kill those who disagree with me' necessarily follows from 'I do not believe in God'. Once you have turned the argument back to him, sit back, relax, and prepare for a chuckle. Basically, it is quite possible to be an atheist and not subscribe to any ideas about killing others who disagree. Turtonm is a real life example of this. And so either the Christian is a brilliant philosopher and will show how turtonm's beliefs are contradictory, or (more likely) he will make some silly arguments which prove nothing. Of course, the Christian could always ask you for an explanation of the higher atheist body count. This would probably be an attempt to get you to propose something which he could stomp on. And so by stomping on your speculations, he would try to pressure you into agreeing with his critique of atheism. I would avoid that road, so don't speculate unless you are fairly confident in your reasoning. Instead, remind the Christian of the challenge at hand. If he wants to criticize atheism based on body count, he must show the connection. Anything less shows that it is nothing more than his theory, and you are not obligated to believe his theory.

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ManM:
[QB]turtonm,

Now you seem to be in agreement with me. Basically, you give a great criticism of various types of external authority based on deontological ethics. I did as much in my last post, and I think it is quite obvious to all that if a particular external authority happens to be bad, atrocity may follow. And so what you have done is provided a deontological laundry list of morality: Do not devalue the human while glorifying the inhuman. Do not demonize others. Violence is bad. Political radicalism is bad. And so from these rules, you look at some historically notorious authoritarian systems and judge them as bad. Here lays the problem. You then make an inductive leap to 'all authoritarian systems are bad'. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that, and I suspect history will support me. If there is but one case in history where an authoritarian system did not commit atrocities, your claim is falsified. Therefore, you are forced to assert that every single case of authoritarian belief has led to a high body count. I am no student of history, but this proposition sounds highly unlikely to me.[/b]

Well, I'm sort of a student of history, and I am aware of authoritarian states were socio-political killing did not take place, although violence, detentions and other violations were common. Singapore comes to mind as an authoritarian state without killing, although violence has been used from time to time. Some might argue that modern Japan represents an authoritarian state where political violence does not take place. I do not agree with the second half of that claim.

History is not as cut-n-dried as logical argument. Since the vast majority of authoritarian systems indulge in killing, my point in the main holds. In any case, the gov'ts of Singapore and Japan have not passed into history, so the potential is still out there.

I find it interesting that you use the language 'almost always' instead of always. 'Almost always' implies 'not always', and therefore you have falsified your own argument.

Not in the slightest, see above. I use "almost always" because of careful academic habit.

But hopefully now you see why such a deductive argument is needed if you wish to assert that authoritarian systems are bad.

No, because the opposite of that assertion is to maintain that they are neutral or even good. That is a morally specious argument, so I reject it out of hand. Political violence is always wrong.

Moving on, I think I finally see why we are talking past each other on the religion argument. I did not intend to imply that religious belief was not a factor in historical evils. Most certainly it is a piece of the puzzle. But for reasons I have already outlined, it is impossible to say that religion is the cornerstone. If we are to look for a cornerstone, I suggest human nature. As I have written a few times before, religion may not be necessary for morality, but it is certainly not worthless.

Well, we'll just have to disagree.

Instead, I propose we carefully analyze the situation to determine exactly which ideas don't mix well together. One such combination involves utilitarian ethics. You start with a utopian vision. This vision could be secular or religious. Then, you add a strong desire to make that vision a current reality. Finally, if you add utilitarian ethics you can justify the means to pursue your vision.

The problem is that authoritarians are not utilitarians.

Of course, the Christian could always ask you for an explanation of the higher atheist body count.

What "higher atheist body count?"

ManM

I have presented a strong critique of your inductive argument, and it will not go away even if you re-assert your point. Your reluctance to make the statement 'all authoritarian systems throughout history have led to atrocity' implies that you accept the possibility of an exception. As I have demonstrated in earlier posts, if such an exception does in fact exist, your inductive argument fails.

Next, you raise a different argument. Authoritarian systems cannot be good or neutral, therefore they must be bad. I really don't know how to handle this, because you didn't offer any arguments as to why authoritarian systems cannot be good or neutral. Again, I am going to have to ask you for some reasoning here. If you can show that political violence necessarily follows from authoritarian belief, then I will proclaim to the heavens that authoritarian belief is bad. If not, then we can agree to disagree.

Authoritarians are not necessarily utilitarians. How is that a problem?

The "higher atheist body count" is what was proposed in the argument. As I demonstrated to Rhea, the truth or falsehood of that proposition doesn't matter.

Rhea

Well, yes and no. You showed it only doesn't matter if I am willing to give up the argument that Religion has caused mayhem. Intuitively, I can't give that up. I am trying to understand the argument to see if I can justify that.