Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Social Darwinism

mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 2:23:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'd say morality is the ultimate guide to action, and I think it would be a really poor conception of morality that advocated Social Darwinism.

Survival of the fittest? why? And what is "fit" anyhow? According to evolution it's just whatever fits the bill, why is that somehow morally important, for the thing which "fits" can offend against morality in the most heinous of ways.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 2:30:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 2:23:15 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I'd say morality is the ultimate guide to action, and I think it would be a really poor conception of morality that advocated Social Darwinism.

Survival of the fittest? why? And what is "fit" anyhow? According to evolution it's just whatever fits the bill, why is that somehow morally important, for the thing which "fits" can offend against morality in the most heinous of ways.

I see morality as rationality. Whatever is rational is moral and whatever is irrational is immoral. I see nothing rational about self-sacrifice. Consistantly striving for self-interest builds a successful society,
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 2:32:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Social Darwinism is, as Skeptic so aptly put, idiotic. Its idiotic because it is simply racism and sexism and any other form of discrimination disguised as an ideology. It also goes completely against to where evolution has gotten us as a species. We don't simply have the bonds to each other and to our families and children out of social convention - its inherent to us as a species to care for the defenseless young and protect those we consider to be inside our social circles. Social Darwinists reject this, and its simply because they're bigoted, cruel, and most likely very alone.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 2:45:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 2:32:45 PM, Volkov wrote:
Social Darwinism is, as Skeptic so aptly put, idiotic. Its idiotic because it is simply racism and sexism and any other form of discrimination disguised as an ideology. It also goes completely against to where evolution has gotten us as a species. We don't simply have the bonds to each other and to our families and children out of social convention - its inherent to us as a species to care for the defenseless young and protect those we consider to be inside our social circles. Social Darwinists reject this, and its simply because they're bigoted, cruel, and most likely very alone.

Maybe I misunderstand the term then, I just think we should act in our self-interest.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 2:48:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 2:45:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Maybe I misunderstand the term then, I just think we should act in our self-interest.

So if a random kid you don't know was about to be killed, and in order for you to save him/her, you also had to risk your life, you would take self-interest over the life of the kid?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 2:51:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 2:48:30 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/28/2010 2:45:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Maybe I misunderstand the term then, I just think we should act in our self-interest.

So if a random kid you don't know was about to be killed, and in order for you to save him/her, you also had to risk your life, you would take self-interest over the life of the kid?

I actually like risk, it all depends on the reward after words. I think it would be worth the popularity.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 2:59:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 2:51:26 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I actually like risk, it all depends on the reward after words. I think it would be worth the popularity.

You're not a social darwinist, then. Doing things out of self-interest is the entire driving force behind our society. A social darwinist would more than likely leave the kid to his fate - survival of the fittest, aye.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 2:59:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"The philosophy of rugged individualism has always seemed to me to be not only a useless but also a pernicious outgrowth or variant of individualism. Rugged individualism, also known as social Darwinism, is inhumane and illogical; it is based on a completely false use of analogy and an absurd theory of ethics." - Murray Rothbard
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 3:04:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 2:59:03 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/28/2010 2:51:26 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I actually like risk, it all depends on the reward after words. I think it would be worth the popularity.

You're not a social darwinist, then. Doing things out of self-interest is the entire driving force behind our society. A social darwinist would more than likely leave the kid to his fate - survival of the fittest, aye.

oh...fail on my part, sorry

Ok then, rephrase; assuming that I am using the right word this time. What do you think of Egoism?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 3:11:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 3:04:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
oh...fail on my part, sorry

Ok then, rephrase; assuming that I am using the right word this time. What do you think of Egoism?

Its a personal choice. As Reasoning pointed out with his Rothbard quote, it borders on pure psychopathic nonsense at times. Doing things for self-interest is all well and fine, but you can't function in any society or social grouping if you do it all the time. These things are based on more than blatant egoism. The connections are built on co-operation and trust and companionship - not simply on what is economically expedient.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 3:16:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 3:11:28 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/28/2010 3:04:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
oh...fail on my part, sorry

Ok then, rephrase; assuming that I am using the right word this time. What do you think of Egoism?

Its a personal choice. As Reasoning pointed out with his Rothbard quote, it borders on pure psychopathic nonsense at times. Doing things for self-interest is all well and fine, but you can't function in any society or social grouping if you do it all the time. These things are based on more than blatant egoism. The connections are built on co-operation and trust and companionship - not simply on what is economically expedient.

Contradiction: If acting in your self-interest causes society to fall apart then it isn't really in your self-interest. It is a philosophy best accompanied by the brains to actually figure what your self-interest is.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 3:46:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 2:45:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:

Maybe I misunderstand the term then, I just think we should act in our self-interest.

The question is: Why?

I would assume the only real answer is: Because I care to. That is I ought to pursue those things for which I care.

The reality is that people generally care for more than just simple security and wealth, they also care about right and wrong, justice, "the good", etc.

Usually when people talk about embracing the cares of "Self Interest" what they mean is that they're to reject cares for "the good" and "justice", which I think of as naturally occuring human cares, rooted in our nature, which are just as valid as are those cares for your own welfare.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 3:53:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 2:30:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 1/28/2010 2:23:15 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I'd say morality is the ultimate guide to action, and I think it would be a really poor conception of morality that advocated Social Darwinism.

Survival of the fittest? why? And what is "fit" anyhow? According to evolution it's just whatever fits the bill, why is that somehow morally important, for the thing which "fits" can offend against morality in the most heinous of ways.

I see morality as rationality. Whatever is rational is moral and whatever is irrational is immoral. I see nothing rational about self-sacrifice. Consistantly striving for self-interest builds a successful society,

It is quite rational for a king to completely and totally enslave his loyal subjects to dominate their lives for his own pleasure. If you conclude that the king is acting morally, you should be locked up.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 4:15:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 3:53:33 PM, mongeese wrote:
It is quite rational for a king to completely and totally enslave his loyal subjects to dominate their lives for his own pleasure.

Not so. Free range slaves are much more productive.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 4:22:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 3:46:34 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/28/2010 2:45:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:

Maybe I misunderstand the term then, I just think we should act in our self-interest.

The question is: Why?

I would assume the only real answer is: Because I care to. That is I ought to pursue those things for which I care.

The reality is that people generally care for more than just simple security and wealth, they also care about right and wrong, justice, "the good", etc.

Usually when people talk about embracing the cares of "Self Interest" what they mean is that they're to reject cares for "the good" and "justice", which I think of as naturally occuring human cares, rooted in our nature, which are just as valid as are those cares for your own welfare.

No, if doing nice things for people makes you happy, like it does me, you are acting in self-interest.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 4:24:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 3:53:33 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/28/2010 2:30:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 1/28/2010 2:23:15 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I'd say morality is the ultimate guide to action, and I think it would be a really poor conception of morality that advocated Social Darwinism.

Survival of the fittest? why? And what is "fit" anyhow? According to evolution it's just whatever fits the bill, why is that somehow morally important, for the thing which "fits" can offend against morality in the most heinous of ways.

I see morality as rationality. Whatever is rational is moral and whatever is irrational is immoral. I see nothing rational about self-sacrifice. Consistantly striving for self-interest builds a successful society,

It is quite rational for a king to completely and totally enslave his loyal subjects to dominate their lives for his own pleasure. If you conclude that the king is acting morally, you should be locked up.

You silly, the king has no real power. If people acted in their self-interest there would be no king. Hence I am Anarchist.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Illumination
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 4:27:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"It also goes completely against to where evolution has gotten us as a species. We don't simply have the bonds to each other and to our families and children out of social convention - its inherent to us as a species to care for the defenseless young and protect those we consider to be inside our social circles."

Actually, humans aren't the only species to "care for the defenseless young and protect those we consider to be inside our social circles."
Horses, cattle, cats, dogs, llamas, goats, birds, and many more animals do the same thing.
Horses, for example, are very protective of foals, whether it is their foal or not. Horses in the wild also have a leader whom protects the rest of the herd from danger.
Illuminate the truth...
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 4:28:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 3:46:34 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Usually when people talk about embracing the cares of "Self Interest" what they mean is that they're to reject cares for "the good" and "justice", which I think of as naturally occuring human cares, rooted in our nature, which are just as valid as are those cares for your own welfare.

Total misrepresentation of Egoism ethics. The idea of self interest as primary does not preclude the helping of others in the least. The issue is what sort of claim (primacy) 'need', 'helping' has on ones actions.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 4:37:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 4:28:48 PM, Puck wrote:

Total misrepresentation of Egoism ethics. The idea of self interest as primary does not preclude the helping of others in the least. The issue is what sort of claim (primacy) 'need', 'helping' has on ones actions.

Are you saying Egoism just puts "self interest" first, and that other cares/interests come after?

is that in all cases? the tip of the self's cherished fingernail before the lives of others, justice, etc.
If so... then I'd say that's an abandonment of The good, justice, others, etc.

And also, what puts cares for 'the self' before other cares?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 4:37:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 4:24:43 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 1/28/2010 3:53:33 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/28/2010 2:30:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 1/28/2010 2:23:15 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I'd say morality is the ultimate guide to action, and I think it would be a really poor conception of morality that advocated Social Darwinism.

Survival of the fittest? why? And what is "fit" anyhow? According to evolution it's just whatever fits the bill, why is that somehow morally important, for the thing which "fits" can offend against morality in the most heinous of ways.

I see morality as rationality. Whatever is rational is moral and whatever is irrational is immoral. I see nothing rational about self-sacrifice. Consistantly striving for self-interest builds a successful society,

It is quite rational for a king to completely and totally enslave his loyal subjects to dominate their lives for his own pleasure. If you conclude that the king is acting morally, you should be locked up.

You silly, the king has no real power. If people acted in their self-interest there would be no king. Hence I am Anarchist.

The king invested greatly in technology. He has technology more powerful than that of the people. He can even torture people from a distance through the manipulation of cell phone vibrations.

Besides, it wasn't government that enabled the slave trade. It was total domination of one group of people by another.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 4:43:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 4:34:03 PM, tkubok wrote:
Social darwinism is an application of a naturalistic fallacy.

you mean it requires one to think that evolution leads to betterment?

I would say not necessarily. One might understand the natural process of evolution, and use that understanding to attempt to "engineer", through certain pressures, people who are, according to their understanding, better.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 4:48:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 4:37:57 PM, mongeese wrote:

Besides, it wasn't government that enabled the slave trade. It was total domination of one group of people by another.

Slavery is inefficient and deteriorate over time in a free-market and if the slaves resisted more it would be even harder to sustain.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 4:52:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 4:22:36 PM, FREEDO wrote:

No, if doing nice things for people makes you happy, like it does me, you are acting in self-interest.

There's no reason to call that "self interest", as that'll be confused with people who are d!<k$,

I'd say it'd be better to just say you support acting according to what you care about,
which is pretty much the only reason I can think anyone would act.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."