The Instigator
themightyindividual
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
iqpiblog
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Social Darwinism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
themightyindividual
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 508 times Debate No: 74197
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

themightyindividual

Pro

Debate perimeters:
This debate is on the subject of social Darwinism, the economic idea and philosophy that people act individually and compete within the market for resources and in doing so create wealth. Those who create the most wealth have done so by their own free will and those who have created the least have also done so by their own free will.

This debate will be argued using fact and reason, no emotional opinions or subjectively heavy thoughts are used in the debate.

To my opponent, you will lose this debate; let this be an example of social Darwinism in practice.

......................................................................................................................................................

First of all, people do act individually and do not act as part of a great "collective". Participation in groups occur only when it is in the best interest of the individual involved. Thus, all actions in a free-market are voluntary and are made in the best interest of those making them. There is no doubt to this because it is human nature to be self-minded.

The result of such economic activity is of course, the best possible result. Objectively speaking, when someone fails, it is their own fault. If you do not accept your faults, you cannot accept your successes. This is what social Darwinism professes. To deny any of this is of course, illogical.

Economic competition is not- as opponents call it -the law of the jungle. Competition in nature by animals is the fight over limited resources. Competition in a civilized capitalist economy is the positive creation of new resources which rewards those who create it. This is a balanced system which is self-regulating. Social Darwinism is an explanation for why capitalism works and why some fail and some succeed.

In a non-free-market economy, people do not succeed the same way they do in a free-market economy. Kings and Lords and Knights succeed, while Serfs, Peasants, and Slaves fail; but this is because of "chance". "Chance" means they are born with no free will over their life because they are born into a class (under Communism, everyone is born into the lower-class). Under capitalism, people are born into their own class, which they spend their lives deciding what that will be.

Some people may have it easy because they are born with upper-class parents, but this is unavoidable because the alternative would be the theft of the babies by the government and the raising of them by the government, this would result in tyranny and something of an Ayn Rand novel.

Therefore, the inequalities of result we see in our capitalist society are good. They mean freedom and prosperity and choice and social Darwinism.
iqpiblog

Con

It is not objective to claim that a persons failures are always their own fault. In fact the outcome of a persons actions is influenced by a multitude of factors. When someone fails, their failure could predominantly have been caused by factors that were out of their control and therefore not their fault. Indeed a person cannot be faulted for their lack of control over every single occurrence. A person could be partially at fault for causing their failure, but never totally at fault.

Whether a person chooses to accept their faults is a matter of personal choice. Indeed some persons might choose to believe that any imperfection in their performance is the fault of external factors beyond their control.

Competing for wealth is a system that encourages greed. The aim of the competition is to continually seek to possess a greater amount of wealth than everyone else. This state of continually seeking to accumuate resources beyond that which is required to maintain a comfortable standard of living, is the inefficient and intrinsically irresponsible mind state of citizens enrolled in a capitalist system.

Competing primarily for wealth accumulation, undermines the greater purpose of the work that they contribute. Indeed a greater satisfaction would be achieved by knowing that Society no longer condones wealth perversion, and manages to significantly imrove the life standards of the masses with regulations to ensure that salaries never exceed or drop below a calculated threshold.

Peoples long term goals in their work places should be to achieve this highest band of income beyond which their primary purpose is liberated from the burden of greed, and they can learn to value the importance of contributing to a fairer system of wealth distribution than currently operates in modern capitalist society
Debate Round No. 1
themightyindividual

Pro

Just because a person does not have complete control over their lives, they should take responsibility for their actions. The people that rise to the top are the people that worked harder than those who have fell to the bottom.

My opponent has said that "competing for wealth is a system that encourages greed". He is right to a certain extent, but is greed in THIS sense actually bad? So-called "greed" in the economy is what makes a man who has a billion dollars (more than enough to live luxuriously for the rest of his life) participate in the economy, and therefore contribute more to society that he needed to in order to get by. This primary instinct to serve one's self is innate in all of us, the actions people make are largely selfish. But all of these selfish acts (under a system of social Darwinism) synchronize to form an economy.

What my opponent does not understand, is that "competing primarily for wealth accumulation" and "the greater purpose of the work they contribute" is the same thing in a capitalist economy. No one can get money without providing a service of some kind. Your salary is derived from the value of your work. Unlike under communism, your work is not valued by some strange class-based government, but by the people who receive the work you are providing! This ensures that everyone is paid fairly, with the alternative being that people are paid relatively the same for jobs varying starkly in value.

"Regulations to ensure that salaries never exceed or drop below a calculated threshold"?! My opponent has lost his mind at this point. Have you no grasp of economics? Besides what I just explained, I must point out that that is called redistribution, and is, in fact, theft. You are essentially saying that people who have worked their way up the social ladder are inferior to those who have chose to stay at (or fall to) the bottom. You are also implying that it is okay to steal from people who are successful.

I can clearly observe that I will win this debate, as my opponent has no idea how the market works.
iqpiblog

Con

iqpiblog forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
themightyindividual

Pro

My opponent has no time for this debate so he forfeited round 2. I will take this opportunity to further my argument.

What people of leftist standing fail to see is that "production for profit" and "production for use" are essentially the same thing. Except the former is more efficient in all areas. "Production for profit" would be manufacturing something with the intent of selling it at a price higher than the manufacturing cost (the sale price). "Production for use" would be manufacturing something with the intent of selling it at a break-even price (no profit). But if you take into account that while people are spending less money, they are also making less money, then it really turns out the same. But it doesn't, "production for profit" works better. "Why?" my opponent asks. Because people will not produce something unless they are going to profit. This is human nature. So the less someone is payed, the less effort they will put into something. Under communism, the solution to this problem is to force them to work through militarized collectivism (a.k.a. slavery). Under capitalism, the solution to this problem is to let every individual and corporation make as much money as possible as long as every transaction is voluntary.

Social Darwinism is the idea that the latter is the way to go. It also explains that market competition leads to inequality, which is not a bad thing. So comparing the incomes of different people and highlighting the stark contrasts between them (which is my opponent's next resort) is moot. There is no logical way to deny this, as it works in theory and in practice.
iqpiblog

Con

iqpiblog forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
themightyindividual

Pro

My opponent must have died, as he will in this debate.

It is very unprofessional to miss two rounds in a debate. I suppose this means he has abandoned this debate. I guess when your entire argument is founded without logic, that is the only thing you can do.
iqpiblog

Con

iqpiblog forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by iqpiblog 1 year ago
iqpiblog
pls accept my apology for not being able to complete our debate

been ill

pls let me know if u wud like to resume

thx
Posted by themightyindividual 1 year ago
themightyindividual
To DrCoquenbols:

My statement that "if you do not accept your failures, you cannot accept your successes" was not meant to be emotional or ethical in any way. I only meant to suggest that it would be illogical to do so, which it is.

My statement that "Objectively speaking, when someone fails, it is their own fault" was to be taken in an economic context. None of your counter-examples were economically applicable.

Also, slavery does not exist in the United States (legally, at least). That is a flat out lie. Maybe employers pay a low wage for work that could conceivably be considered more valuable. But they do not force their employees to work there. Wages do not have anything to do with slavery. If a slave-owner pays his slaves $50.00/hour for farm work, but does not give them the option to leave (even if they want to stay) it is slavery. But if people choose to work for $7.00/hour for fast-food service (by their own free will) then it is not slavery.

Also, the idea that people don't always know what's good for them is exactly what social Darwinism eliminates. People who choose to purchase products they know are bad for them (like products with artificial flavors and colors) are punished by nature with cancer and heart disease and other related illnesses. People who eat a balanced diet (bread, meat, vegetables, fruit, dairy, fats) are rewarded by nature with a long healthy life. Companies only provide products known to cause health problems because people really want them. Anyone can say they want to eat healthy, but in reality some don't.
Posted by DrCoquenbols 1 year ago
DrCoquenbols
Part 2:

>Competition in a civilized capitalist economy is the positive creation of new resources which rewards those who create it. This is a balanced system which is self-regulating.

I won't argue that competition is a bad thing, it is in fact, very healthy for pretty much any economy. But I will argue against the idea that an unregulated capitalist economy is in any way self-regulating. Look at the US economy policy, look at the regulations effecting corporations in the US. Which of those were introduced and enforced by the government and which ones were introduced or implement by corporations? Child labor laws, elimination of debt bondage, elimination of slavery, mandatory drug testing and safety standards, food safety standards, medical safety standards, safety standards for buildings and vehicles, etc. All of these are government regulations which corporations happily ignored because they weren't in their best interest. Also, let's look at monopolies, which are what form when there isn't competition, but cooperation between large corporations.

See, you act as if "Social Darwinism" means that in the real world you can do whatever you want and that you shouldn't be limited in your power and corporations should be able to do whatever they can get away with and everyone else can suck an egg. But you misunderstand because you don't recognize that normal people, in order to combat this, can all come together and form something like a democratic republic, a government, and use their collective will, and resources, and force, to make the less powerful entities, like corporations, behave as they want them to. We live in a world of Social Darwinism, but you forget governments are just bigger, more powerful, more 'evolved' (to keep with the theme) entities when compared to big corporations, the exorbitantly wealthy, etc. and in serving themselves, they aim to serve their citizens as a whole.
Posted by DrCoquenbols 1 year ago
DrCoquenbols
Honestly, both these arguments are fairly ridiculous and betray a poor understanding of economics.

So let's just assume that from a moral or ethical standpoint, a completely unregulated economy with absolutely no government involvement for ensuring safety or providing some sort of safety net for vulnerable people is a completely bankrupt concept.

Let's look at this as objectively as possible and highlight some of the flaws with Themightyindividual's arguments:

>Participation in groups occur only when it is in the best interest of the individual involved. Thus, all actions in a free-market are voluntary and are made in the best interest of those making them.

This is demonstrably false. Look at slavery, which is a phenomenon that still exists today in the US. Being forced into a group is not the same as a calculated personal decision. Also, people don't always know what is in their best interest. People act against their best interests all the time, if not most of the time. Look at the cause of the housing market crash, it's a classic case of "if you don't eat this marshmallow, I'll bring you two in five minutes" and instead of waiting, they just ate the marshmallow immediately.

>Objectively speaking, when someone fails, it is their own fault. If you do not accept your faults, you cannot accept your successes.

Again, false. And that second part is less logic and more some sort of ethical appeal. Of course I can deny my faults and accept my successes, I do it all the time. When someone fails it's not always their own fault. They were born blind, their family abandoned them, they were homeschooled by lunatics, they were shot in a drive by, they were falsely accused of committing a crime, etc. All things which can ruin your life, but are absolutely not your fault in any way.

In 2 paragraphs nearly every word you've written has been demonstrably false, or again, an appeal which you've forbidden from the discussion.
Posted by iqpiblog 1 year ago
iqpiblog
Inter-people competition will be replaced by a more beneficial model that identifies that our competition is actually between our teams of people and overcoming our worldly obstacles.

The systematic inequality and lack of class mobility that is prevalent in modern capitalist societies is more closely a reflection of your own description of a polarized elite (lord) class that disproportionately enjoy society"s wealth and opportunities in contrast to the masses (slaves) whom exist in capitalist society as virtual slaves that are led to believe that they are part of a fair and free economic system. The masses are so successfully and robotically enslaved in the capitalist system that the alternative model that seeks to liberate the masses has been deceptively stained and disguised to appear as the complete opposite to what its central notion is based on. Greater equality. The alternative economic model proposed the possibility of a society of citizens that would proudly eliminate selfish elitist wealth perversions and instead dedicate their efforts to increase equality, unity, and efficiency.

To strive towards eliminating class differences and aim to provide every citizen with an equal standard of living can clearly be seen to be desirable attributes.

There is no reason that these positive attributes would for any reason cause a restriction to innovation, motivation, or creativity as is sometimes claimed.
Posted by iqpiblog 1 year ago
iqpiblog
it is undesirable and shameful for an individual to be solely focused on their own selfish wellbeing whilst ignoring the importance for establishing a minimum basic standard of living for all citizens that is not vastly disadvantaged in comparison to the highest attainable income level.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Cowboy0108 1 year ago
Cowboy0108
themightyindividualiqpiblogTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Fft
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
themightyindividualiqpiblogTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro for Con's forfeits. Arguments to Pro as Con did not properly refute Pro's case and Pro upheld the BOP.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
themightyindividualiqpiblogTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
themightyindividualiqpiblogTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF