[Blackacre]

And what is the intrinsic value of a functional society?

That's a silly question. Most people prefer to not live in a society where barbarians roam the hills and the only law is who has the most weapons.

If a mad man (even the word "mad" is now relative with Dawkin's philosophy) wants to destroy the world with nukes, I see nothing that is intrinsically "evil" in what he wants to do.

Perhaps. But that doesn't mean others won't try to stop him, seeing as the rest of us don't want to die.

[SeekAndFind]

Perhaps. But that doesn't mean others won't try to stop him, seeing as the rest of us don't want to die.

Yes, and as I said before ( see above ), if Dawkin's worldview is correct, Hitler isn't really evil, just different. Your using the words -- stop him -- says it all -- the group with the stronger weapons win, and if whoever wins gets to establish what is right or wrong.

You can try to stop the next Hitler but he can also stop you and if (God ( who doesn't exist) forbid ) he wins, killing Jews and gays would be the norm. Not evil mind you, just the norm. In fact, not persecuting Jews would then be evil.

That HAS to be the conclusion if Dawkin's worldview is correct.

[SeekAndFind]

Most people prefer to not live in a society where barbarians roam the hills and the only law is who has the most weapons.

Translation -- what most people prefer is good and vice versa. So, you are simply saying that if most people prefer something, that *something* is good in itself ?

[Soothesayer]

“That’s a silly question. Most people prefer to not live in a society where barbarians roam the hills and the only law is who has the most weapons.”

Key word “prefer”. We already know that certain other groups (such as radical muslims) are quite in love with barbarism.