Friday, August 14, 2009

Another Outtake from "What Matters Most"

Ted Bundy, naturalism, and nihilism:

Ted Bundy (1946-1989), the stunningly successful mass murder (until caught and executed), shared Stirner’s basic philosophy.[1] Although I have no evidence that Bundy read Max Stirner (few have), his philosophy of life was quintessential Stirner. A transcript taken from recorded comments by Bundy, which were made to a woman he was about to rape and kill, reveal his worldview. Having learned that “value judgments” are subjective and that none can be deemed right or wrong, Bundy found no reason to obey the law. Especially for one like himself, “who was bold and daring” and who had “the strength of character to throw off the shackles.” Bundy discovered his freedom by rejecting that “he was bound to respect the rights of others.” If humans have no intrinsic rights, “Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer?” In an age of “scientific enlightenment,” there is no justification for calling “some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and other as immoral and ‘bad.” This is how Bundy justified the raping and murdering of dozens of young women.[2] Given his (false) amoral presuppositions, he was right.

[1] It was revealed in a 1989 interview with James Dobson shortly before Bundy’s execution that Bundy repented of his crimes.
[2] A paraphrased and rewritten statement of Ted Bundy by Harry V. Jaffa, Homosexuality and the Natural Law (Claremont, CA: The Claremont Institute of the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, 1990), 3-4.


Paul said...

If one consistently held to "amoral presuppositions," then even the force and impact of these words you have written have no bearing whatsoever. Of course, that would be fine for the amoralist until he/she met another amoralist and they had a disagreement!

"No man is an [amoral] island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main."
John Donne - Devotions upon Emergent Occasions

Fletcher said...

Doctor G, this reminds me of an objection against Christianity a friend of mine brought up the other day. He was talking about Hitler who was also obviously amoral.

He asked me if I really believed that millions of people that Hitler was responsible for having killed would go to hell if they didn't confess faith in Jesus as Lord, while at the same time if Hitler had a sincere deathbed confession would he be going to heaven, despite all of the blood on his hands. That was a tough conversation for me... how would you respond to that?