The conclusion: From Darwin to Hilter

I came to the conclusion of this book. I have been reading this wonderful book through Jun holiday. It is so convincing and insightful that I think every student who studies Sociology, Political Science and other related social science should know:

"Since its advent in the mid-nineteenth century Darwinism has stirred up debate about many questions touching the very heart of human beings. Not least among these is: How should we live? While many philosophers and theologians rules this question outside the purview of science, most prominent advocates of Darwinian theory believed Darwinism had far-reaching ramifications for ethics and morality.

If morality was built on social instincts that changes over evolutionary time, then morality must be relative to the conditions of life at any given time. Darwinism- together with other forms of historicist ascendant in the nineteenth century- thus contributed to the rise of moral relativism.

But, interestingly, many Darwinists were not willing to live with complete more relativism. They still retained one fixed point of reference- the process of evolution itself. Since morality arose through evolution, they argued that the purpose of morality is to advance the evolutionary process.

But, of course, Darwinism provided no basis to consider some form of morality better than any other, or for that matter, it gave no reason to think that morality was better in any real sense than immorality. Yet most used morally charged language quite freely, apparently oblivious to the contradiction this entailed.

Those Darwinists who made the evolutionary process the new criteria for morality radically altered the way that people thought about morality. Since they generally affirmed that good health and intelligence were key factors in the upward march of evolution, improving physical vitality and mental prowess-especially of future generations- became the highest moral value. The great sin was to contribute in some way to the decline of physical life or intellectual ability.

While Christian morality demands a relationship of love toward God and one's neighbors, which involves self-sacrifice, evolutionary ethics focused on breeding better humans, even if it meant sacrificing other people in the process.

This new "Morality" has shifted the very foundation of society. Darwinism also argued that humans were not qualitatively different from animals. The significance of
individuals life did not seem all that great considering the mass death brought on by the Darwinian struggle for existence. Multitudes necessarily died before reproducing, and this was the key to evolutionary process.

Darwinism also stressed on biological inequality, since evolution could not occur without significant variation. Humans were no exception, so egalitarianism must be misguided.

These views on human inequality, the primacy of evolutionary progress and the beneficence of death in furthering that process produced a world view that devalued human life.

Many used Darwinism arguments to assign some humans to the category of "inferior" or degenerate. There were generally two main categories of people "inferior": The handicapped and non European races. Since they were "inferior", and since the death of the less fit in the struggle for existence will result in biological improvement, why not help evolution along by getting rid of the "inferior"

....."
Now I am sure you see the picture, and no wonder that Hilter acted in such determined manner, rather in delusion,it is no wonder that Holocaust happened in such calm and systematic ways.

Men are often the salve of what they believe. Find the truth, that truth shalt set you free.