Reprising this anecdote about philosopher Bertrand Russell’s opinion that the world would be better off with a Nazi victory. As reported by Richard Jencks, who was one of Russell’s students at UCLA in 1940:
“The British philosopher Bertrand Russell, who had been jailed in World War I for his pacifism by a government of which Churchill was a minister, is considering whether he should abandon those pacifist beliefs if Britain faces imminent invasion. He does not think that passive resistance would work against Hitler. These considerations do not prevent Russell from confiding to his philosophy students at the University of California in Los Angeles (this writer among them) that world peace, in the long run, will probably be better served by Hitler’s victory. World peace, Russell posits, cannot be had without world government. Over the long years ahead, he says, civilizing influences will operate to soften the bestial edges of Nazi rule.”
How does one makes that consequentialist calculation? Is it like this:
Scenario 1: If the Nazis win, there will be many deaths from war and bestial Nazi government. But if they win, the Nazi will establish a world government; and if there is a world government, there will be no more war. Meanwhile, civilizing forces will lessen the harms done by the Nazi world government. Total death and human damage account: X.
Scenario 2: If the Nazis lose, there will have been many deaths from that war but bestial Nazi damage will cease. However, many different nations will still exist, and they will exist contentiously, so there will continue to be wars. Total death and human damage account: Y.
Russell thinks X < Y. I have no idea how to assign numbers here. I wonder whether Russell did. Also: Are those the only two scenarios? I don’t think so. The continued existence of many states is in principle compatible with peace, as long as we continue to make progress in teaching about individual rights and that we should make trades not war — the so-called democratic peace and capitalist peace hypotheses.
So: Can we assign some Russellian numbers to the above two scenarios? And are there other plausible scenarios we should consider?
Source: Richard W. Jencks, “Why Capitol Hill Needs a Churchill Reminder,” The Wall Street Journal, May 10, 2013. Viewed May 26, 2013.
Related:
Friedrich Engels against liberal peace.
Is commerce rendering war obsolete?
Well, he might’ve been right. In which case, I consider world peace not to be worth much.
As constructed, Russell’s argument is clearly wrong, if only because it ignores the reality of Civil War. This is far different from the claim that no better argument can be made to reach Russell’s conclusion. Such a better argument would include historical, not merely philosophical analysis.
We have actual examples of the results of that kind of thinking.
1) You live in Russia in 1917. Do you support a Bolshevik takeover because “that will unify Russia and the bestial nature of the Communists will decline with time”? In fact, that bestial nature did decline with time. It took over 70 years and cost millions of lives.
2) Do you support the corrupt Shah of Iran or the religious fanatics following the Ayatollah? Thousands have already died. That particular brand of religious fanaticism though, has been around for 1,500 years and shows no signs of softening.
I didn’t know that about Russell either. Excellent examples Bob.
Jared Diamond in what I consider the very worthwhile ‘Guns, Germs, and Steel’ argues that what led to China’s stagnation and helplessness before the British was that it had become too centralized. At the time of Columbus for example the Chinese were building immense sailing vessels 500 feet long – which dwarfed the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria – performing remarkable feats of navigation-exploration. But the eunuch court faction behind the program fell out of grace in court intrigues with the result that the impetus behind it was terminated. Columbus on the other hand was rejected by several monarchs before finally being backed by Ferdinand and Isabella.
The important factor as always are the ideas that predominate. Liberal states don’t fight each other; autocratic ones do.
Also Russell doesn’t seem to have considered, or be concerned about another possibility: Wars of oppression and extermination by government/s against their own defenseless civilian populations, as occurred time and again under 20th century collectivist regimes.
Rand quoted the Roman emperor who said he wished humanity had a single neck so he could wring it. With the wrong ideas a world government could be the best next thing.
The example of Bertie Russell supports the not unreasonable view that reason has its limitations, and that a clever man can use it to prove what he wishes. People who drag in the Holocaust as their main cause célèbre usually are gifted in hindsight, hindsight often being mainly for a**holes. Many people at that time supported the rise of Germany (against Bolshevist Russia) and “Christian” intellectuals opposed to “atheist” or “empirical” ones, it being possible to argue longer, and more cleverly, where there is no imperative moral law, such as the Ten Commandments.We neglect all the horrors of history if we focus on one Holocaust, whereas there have been many. All early wars were those of extermination or annihilation, call it what you will. Russell is from a similar Darwinian school like Spencer’s. His extreme rationality was divorced from human flesh and the shocks which it is heir to. Invited to teach at Columbia University, he and his wife put their “open marriage” philosophy into practice — no reason they shouldn’t. They were asked to leave. That pose with a pipe puts the viewer in mind of Sherlock Holmes, a moral prototype who showed mercy, at times, to criminals who were caught up in some fateful circumstance. One might say (in tune with THE SPECKLED BAND) [my version] that “when a mathematician turns to morals, he can be very wicked indeed…” [e.g. Holmes remarks about Dr. Grimsby Roylott] All reason begins with premises, and the joy of philosophy (I think) is testing and measuring ’em.
I believe Thomas Sowell also refers to this opinion by Russell in his book “Intellectuals and Society.” I believe the chapter is titled “Intellectuals and War.”
Regarding Stephen Dahl’s claim that “…reason has it’s limitations, and that a clever man can use it to prove what he wishes”, please check your definitions. A clever person can ARGUE for a particular point in a logical sounding fashion. But logical sounding arguments are not proof. As for the examples given, the only response is to admonish those people to check their premises.
To rebut Mr. Marks but slightly, “proof” is a funny word. “The proof of the pudding is in the eating…” The proof mark on a rifle barrel. The word comes from German “Prufrung” to test, also, to taste, as in the pudding example. One MUST argue logically to prove anything, but proof is also perception. One cannot prove existence. One cannot “prove” there is a God nor that there is none. My point was that any resourceful “philosophe” [the French word is used deliberately] can “prove” what he wants to, almost for the “a-prove-al” of others. What is generally rejected cannot be considered a proof of anything but general rejection. Mathematical proofs are more open to testing than tasting, obviously. In metaphysics, we may end up with “proof” as a statistical consensus among “philosophes” but I would refer the reader to Ayn Rand’s advice, “In philosophy, if you hear that Aristotle has been disproved, ask ‘where?'” which would mean to me check those premises. You may not have any flavor to your pudding, nor, indeed, pudding itself. A legal proof would depend on logic, a judge and jury, plus the legal base. But in philosophy we do as we go. I would submit that the progress of philosophy has to do with the refinement of its premises. Or, one might fall back on the dictum of La Rochefaucauld, “Arguments would not last so long, were the right on one side only.” More playfully, there is a delightful poem by Tobias Hume called “Tobacco,’ in which the poet lists all the advantages of that addictive herb, that it will suffice to relieve boredom and pain, and to requite love…indeed…after enumerating examples of tobacco’s power, Hume concludes, “For you see, I have proved it!”
Again, good point Bob. We must not confuse claims of rationality and truth with the genuine articles, or sophistry for sound reasoning. That was the point of Aristotle’s ‘Sophistical Refutations’: to spotlight the means by which fallacious arguments were put over on the gullible. If I hear a fundamentalist proclaim his dogma truth I’m not going to say, “Yuk, then to hell with truth.”
Hi Stephen Dahl,
You wrote: “To rebut Mr. Marks but slightly, “proof” is a funny word. “The proof of the pudding is in the eating…” The proof mark on a rifle barrel. The word comes from German “Prufrung” to test, also, to taste, as in the pudding example.”
That is not the sense in which I was using “proof.” I meant it this way: “the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.” Or, more simply, this: “something that induces certainty or establishes validity.”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof
You continued: ” One MUST argue logically to prove anything, but proof is also perception.” Not according to the above definitions.
You continued: “One cannot prove existence. One cannot “prove” there is a God nor that there is none. My point was that any resourceful “philosophe” [the French word is used deliberately] can “prove” what he wants to, almost for the “a-prove-al” of others.”
One cannot “prove existence” because existence is prior to proof. If a person does not exist, they cannot prove anything or even ask for proof. A student once asked Professor Morganbesser on Columbia to prove that he existed. Morganbesser’s response was “Who’s asking?” As for proof or disproof of God,, Bertrand Russell was once asked if after he died, he did see that there was a God. What would he say? Russell said “I would tell him that he didn’t give us enough evidence.” Kant used similar arguments to show the “limitations” of reason. But he showed nothing of the sort. Reason requires premises. If knowledge is insufficient, then there are not enough premises to make a conclusive argument. So yes, it is possible to argue that the Universe is infinite or finite. But in the absence of sufficient evidence there is no proof one way or the other.
You also wrote “In metaphysics, we may end up with “proof” as a statistical consensus among “philosophes””
Isn’t that an argument from popularity?
You wrote: “Or, one might fall back on the dictum of La Rochefaucauld, “Arguments would not last so long, were the right on one side only.” ”
Isn’t that another argument from popularity? After all, racism has been around a very long time. Does that mean racism has validity?
As far as those philosophs, they are arguing and persuading, but they are not proving.
Again, a slight rebuttal. Your definitions prove your point. Perception precedes cognition. The existence of an external object can be proven by evidence. If many people accept this, such as photos of the moon, then the moon may be said “to exist.” Exist for those people. Objects which cannot be perceived cannot be said to exist, save in themselves. As for reason, it is dependent upon perception and its own logical operation. People being imperfect, many mistakes using reason are incurred. Ayn Rand was specific about this, but you may wish to consult Aristotle. The touchy subject of “racism,” which seems an irritant to you, I answer by saying there is one human race, many human families. Not all these families get along or profit from one another. You are not obliged to like Outer Mongolians, nor am I (I happen to, but their women are charming, being a smiling kind, with big red cheeks). Men are created “equal” in that, as Jefferson wrote, they are given by their Creator “certain inalienable rights” — life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They do not all possess the same brain power. The Boeing Company is not planning to hire a team of Aborigines to design their next jumbo jet. International IQ tests show the Japanese to be the most intelligent people on the planet. It’s all one merry whirl, not subject to caviling small thoughts! Best, SRD
Stephen Dhal wrote: “Again, a slight rebuttal. Your definitions prove your point. Perception precedes cognition. The existence of an external object can be proven by evidence. If many people accept this, such as photos of the moon, then the moon may be said “to exist.” Exist for those people.”
That’s a non-sequetur. Yes perception precedes cognition and the existence of external objects can be proven by evidence. But from that, it does not follow that existence means only existence for “those people.”The water molecule consisted of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen long before this was demonstrated by chemists. Indeed, that was so even before there were people who could recognize water, let alone figure out its chemical formula.
You wrote: ” Objects which cannot be perceived cannot be said to exist, save in themselves.”
Yes they can be said to exist. For example, right now there are probably thousands of planets around other stars which haven’t been discovered yet. And they exist despite our lack of knowledge about them. What you should have written is “objects which cannot be perceived are not presently known to exist.”
You wrote: ” The touchy subject of “racism,” which seems an irritant to you, I answer by saying there is one human race, many human families.”
Yes of course there is. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear here. The point I was making was that ideas can’t be said to have any validity simply because they have been around a long time. Perhaps I should have used the belief in witches instead. That idea is still around BTW. I read an article a few days ago that people are still being killed in New Guinea for that reason.
Philosophically I think we’re still at an early stage of separating being and consciousness.
Kant capitalized on this, aided by the fact that consciousness and being are subjectively experienced as an indivisible whole (it is by its content that consciousness is manifested) hence require a degree of sophistication and abstraction to separate i.e. to separate being a thing from consciousness of it. In spite of the dazzling virtuosity of its circumlocutions ‘The Critique of Pure Reason’ remains at the level of a primitive man just beginning to separate them: to waken to the scientific understanding of consciousness as process i.e. to realize that what he has always subjectively experienced as the primary, self-evident fact of his life is in fact the product of the most complex process known to man.
With the phenomenal-noumenal split Kant equivocated a radical redefinition of knowledge into contradiction and absurdity against which human knowledge failed to measure. Taking a page from the Christian ethics he created an epistemological analog of the moral notions of original sin and “perfection” (ideas to which in essence he also subscribed) that rendered consistent virtue impossible to Christians, creating sin and the market for salvation. In both cases, by means of impossible contradictions posited as ideals, man’s nature was framed as his failure: In one morally; in the other epistemologically. By implying that being, or identity, ought to be the criterion of, and synonymous with knowing, or identification, Kant equivocated a contradiction as the standard of the latter. Accepted, it destroyed the possibility of knowledge of the world. That world – the world – he had reclaimed for faith.
Ummm…shouldn’t the bigger point be that Russell changed his mind?
Great, Jacob. Please provide a source, and an explanation for why this is the bigger point would be helpful too.