Social Darwinism: Right or Wrong

[Ben Davis]

Hey guys,

I was wondering how you all felt about this topic.

If I didn't believe in God, it seems to me that I would adopt this belief so I was curious how those those that really don't believe in God feel.

So please let me know what you think. Is it right or wrong and why?

Although I mentioned God above, my intention is not to discuss the existence of God or moral ontology.

Sorry for joining late & going back to the OP but what the hell is Socal Darwinism anyway? I know what the words mean separately but as soon as they're put together, they lose meaning.

If we're being strict, it should be a way of describing how societies 'evolve' although that's a layman's use of the term 'evolve' - good luck describing the population mechanics or allele frequencies of cultures!

...or do you really mean 'social engineering based on a corrupted idea of the meaning of the term 'survival of the fittest''? And is the purpose of this to try and create a false dichotomy between theistic & atheistic morals/ethics (e.g. if it's not God's laws, it's something terrible instead!)? If so, do you understand that Darwin clarified what was meant by that term: 'the fittest' means 'the most adaptable to change'.

If so, that might not be such a bad thing. Imagine that! People who are willing to accept reality on its own terms and adjust on the basis of improving not just survivability but also quality of life!

[Mister Agenda]

Usually what is meant by Social Darwinism is to leave those in need to their own devices. If they're weak, they'll perish; if they're strong (smart enough, resourceful enough, or whatever) they'll survive. Humanity and society will be improved by letting the unenterprising and unhealthy die off before they can breed. Vinny is taking it a step farther into actually advocating radical eugenics.

[Anomalocaris]

The delusion that human life is special decrease the probability that YOU will be clubbed to a pulp for someone else's afternoon entertainment. Of course YOU in your infinite realism would not care for such delusions and would therefore gladly suffer undecreased probability of being turned into ground meat.

This is an interesting post. You are willing to face the fact that the value of human life is an evolutionarily beneficial delusion?

Value is another name for utility. When the indirect consequence of permissiveness towards casual termination of other human life upon your own safety is considered, the value, or utility, of other human lives to you is likely pretty damn high - in many cases a very substantial percentage of the value your place upon your own safety - compared to the value of your typical non-human life.

So there is nothing delusional about the utility to YOU of other people's lives. The only delusion here is yours about your own perceptiveness, and about the utility of your strident yet profoundly obtuse rants to others.

[Whateverist]

It sure appears that Vinny likes to portray positions which cast the atheist character he plays on these forums in stereotypically despised ways. But why?

I guessing the answer lies behind one of these three doors:


Door 1: Vinny is a theist looking to make atheists look bad.

Door 2: Vinny is a self loathing atheist.

Door 3: Vinny is no theist but harbors the same low opinion of atheists who are vociferous about atheism.


I suspect the correct answer lies behind door 3. Anyone else have a theory? What would you say, Vin? Tell you what, you answer and then I'll tell you whether you're saying it straight or if you're still in character.

[genkaus]

It sure appears that Vinny likes to portray positions which cast the atheist character he plays on these forums in stereotypically despised ways. But why?

I guessing the answer lies behind one of these three doors:


Door 1: Vinny is a theist looking to make atheists look bad.

Door 2: Vinny is a self loathing atheist.

Door 3: Vinny is no theist but harbors the same low opinion of atheists who are vociferous about atheism.


I suspect the correct answer lies behind door 3. Anyone else have a theory? What would you say, Vin? Tell you what, you answer and then I'll tell you whether you're saying it straight or if you're still in character.

Door 4: Vinny is a self-loathing theist who harbors low opinion of vociferous atheists and wants to make them look bad.

[Anomalocaris]

Door 5: Vinny is of uncontrollably domineering, narcissistic self-promoting personality, is aware of this, thinks he ought to be worshiped nonetheless for what he conceive to be his genius, but is in reality redeemed by no perceptible gift whatsoever.

[Something completely different]

option 1, on how to deal with him.

No longer visit this thread, no longer post in this thread, no longer write about him and let him enjoy his selfinflicted lonelyness.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

This is an interesting post. You are willing to face the fact that the value of human life is an evolutionarily beneficial delusion?

Value is another name for utility. When the indirect consequence of permissiveness towards casual termination of other human life upon your own safety is considered, the value, or utility, of other human lives to you is likely pretty damn high - in many cases a very substantial percentage of the value your place upon your own safety - compared to the value of your typical non-human life.

So there is nothing delusional about the utility to YOU of other people's lives. The only delusion here is yours about your own perceptiveness, and about the utility of your strident yet profoundly obtuse rants to others.

No, value is not another name for utility. Values can be non-utilitarian in a philosophically idealistic worldview. They are not one and the same.

And why are you using deliberately obtuse (your word) vocabulary when there's much simpler ways to say it?

"If killing people is morally indifferent, my own life is at risk."

Is what you seem to be saying. But this evo-psych theory can easily be turned on its head:

"If killing people is morally indifferent, I can use that power to increase my resources and protect myself further."

There we go, hard evidence that you are wrong. You should stick to sending me nasty PMs. They were more entertaining.

I bet a lot of people think you ARE special, amigo.

But if your comprehensive abilities didn't depart so sharply from the standard deviation, you would know that it is not what "you find". It's what "it is rational to find".

There are people out there who say they find square circles, and teapots orbiting around Jupiter as well. Don't you wish to be more rational than those?

Is there anything rational about fears and desires? What motivates is what motivates. You can't figure that out from scratch. Whatever premises you may choose to begin with in attempting to reason your way to a set of values, there must at the foundational level be desires which are served. What is rational is always in the service of some valuation which itself is not rational. It isn't rational to think otherwise.

What is all this hippie crap about fears and desires?

Everything needs to boils down to something rational in order to make sense.

Otherwise, Hitchens-forbid we end up in a situation where we have justified murder as a "desire" and subject rationality to fulfilling this desire.

It sure appears that Vinny likes to portray positions which cast the atheist character he plays on these forums in stereotypically despised ways. But why?

I guessing the answer lies behind one of these three doors:


Door 1: Vinny is a theist looking to make atheists look bad.

Door 2: Vinny is a self loathing atheist.

Door 3: Vinny is no theist but harbors the same low opinion of atheists who are vociferous about atheism.


I suspect the correct answer lies behind door 3. Anyone else have a theory? What would you say, Vin? Tell you what, you answer and then I'll tell you whether you're saying it straight or if you're still in character.

It sure appears that "whateverist" likes to cast aspersions on people he disagrees with. But why?

1. Because he's wrong and he doesn't want to admit it.
2. Because he doesn't care about being right and wrong.
3. Because he likes doing shady, unethical things to other people.

I suspect the current answer lies behind....well, I'll let you decide.

[Anomalocaris]

"If killing people is morally indifferent, I can use that power to increase my resources and protect myself further."

Bullshit. People will act to avoid being killed. They do this by trying to kill he who pose a serious threat. There will be many of them and just one of you. You are overwhelmingly likely to lose.

Your resource will be the dust you will bite, and your protection the 6 feet of dirt they, if they still value you for some reason more than you ever valued them, will throw over your head.

[Whateverist]

Is there anything rational about fears and desires? What motivates is what motivates. You can't figure that out from scratch. Whatever premises you may choose to begin with in attempting to reason your way to a set of values, there must at the foundational level be desires which are served. What is rational is always in the service of some valuation which itself is not rational. It isn't rational to think otherwise.

It sure appears that Vinny likes to portray positions which cast the atheist character he plays on these forums in stereotypically despised ways. But why?

I guessing the answer lies behind one of these three doors:


Door 1: Vinny is a theist looking to make atheists look bad.

Door 2: Vinny is a self loathing atheist.

Door 3: Vinny is no theist but harbors the same low opinion of atheists who are vociferous about atheism.


I suspect the correct answer lies behind door 3. Anyone else have a theory? What would you say, Vin? Tell you what, you answer and then I'll tell you whether you're saying it straight or if you're still in character.

It sure appears that "whateverist" likes to cast aspersions on people he disagrees with. But why?

1. Because he's wrong and he doesn't want to admit it.
2. Because he doesn't care about being right and wrong.
3. Because he likes doing shady, unethical things to other people.

I suspect the current answer lies behind....well, I'll let you decide.

Bravo. That was completely in character. Truly you are one disagreeable atheist as, by association, must we all be.