I really don’t want to draw this out, but there’s one particular element of Norm’s latest rejoinder that I can’t let pass: his point #3:
To make his point as cogent as he can, therefore to play down to some degree the consideration that other (non-religious) movements, other (non-religious) doctrines, have also been responsible for terrible harm, Mick permits himself a comparison between religion, on the one hand, and Nazism and communism, on the other, this in the matter of the moral licensing of plainly immoral actions; and though he expresses himself somewhat tentatively on the matter, the comparison comes out in favour of… Nazism and communism. It seems that belief in paradise and in divine authority is what clinches it for him. I wonder how committed he really is to this judgement, and whether the dynamics of argument and counter-argument haven’t led him somewhere he may not really want to be. But, in any case, Nazism and communism killed millions upon millions of people with the purpose either of cleansing this world or making of it a better world – without needing either an afterlife or a divine entity to justify the numbers of dead.
What I was comparing, with carefully expressed doubt as to the power of my argument, was how religion compares to secular ideologies such as Nazism and communism in the extent to which it can be used to “turn” morality – to justify evil actions. Here’s how I put it:
Nazism and communism…both justified barbarous behaviour. Can we make a distinction with religion? Possibly. I’m not sure. If I were to try and make that case, I’d argue along the lines that religion has that special propensity to take what we would normally regard as immoral actions and, using its power to define morality in its own image, redefine them to be actively good. The kidnappers of Alan Johnston were keen on beheading him not simply for the propaganda value, but as an action good in itself, which would help secure them favours in paradise. Nazi and Soviet functionaries would not, I think, have felt quite such enthusiasm for their barbarity: the sadists among them were to be regretfully indulged because it was all necessary for a higher cause.
Whether or not you agree with my conclusions, there’s a clear distinction between what I’m talking about here – the use of a belief system to justify evil – and the nature of that evil. Whether religion is or is not more effective than Nazism or communism in, as Norm puts it, “the moral licensing of plainly immoral actions”, is a different question from the issue of which of those immoral actions can then be judged to be worse. The only way I can make sense of Norm’s comment – “the comparison comes out in favour of… Nazism and communism… I wonder how committed he really is to this judgement, and whether the dynamics of argument and counter-argument haven’t led him somewhere he may not really want to be” – is that he’s ignoring that distinction and implying that I’m engaged in a direct comparison of the effects of Nazism/communism with religion, with the former emerging as the winners, and therefore my position requires me to play down if not ignore those “millions upon millions” killed in the Holocaust and the gulags.
Well no. I know perfectly well where I am, and where I want to be, thanks. I’m also perfectly well aware of the grim history of the 20th Century. The judgement I’m committed to – in reality the argument I tentatively advanced – is about the twisting of ethical systems to justify immoral actions, not about drawing up a balance sheet comparing different historical barbarities.
That is all.
Mick Hartley 
Leave a reply to Richard Dell Cancel reply