Social Darwinism: Right or Wrong

[Minimalist]

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.

The closest thing to Social Darwinism in the US is the money wing of the republican party and they are allied with the jesus freaks. How do you explain that?

[Cyberman]

I didn't intend for this to be a thread that focused on me. I'm curious what you guys think.

---

There have been a few threads lately that ask Christians what they believe on a topic and why...I'm simply doing the same for atheists.

I appreciate that and I gave my thoughts on the subject in my response. It's just that you've made this sort of claim a few times now, that without God/Jesus you'd run around killing and raping or whatever. You haven't put it in exactly those words but that would a broadly accurate summation. I feel it might clarify the matter if you were to expand on why you would behave this way. You can take that to mean "indulge my curiosity" if you like.

[Simon Moon]

Social Darwinism has been discredited in many ways, some of which stems from a misunderstanding of biological evolution. Biological evolution does not operate on the the basis of cut-throat competition in humans. It operates on the basis that the community, not the individual is the unit of human survival.

Survival of the fittest in humans does not mean the most aggressive, cut-throat, selfish individual will help the species survive. Humans survived as a species due to cooperation, altruism, kin selection, etc.

It's funny that social Darwinism was used from the late 19th century to support laissez-faire capitalism and political conservatism. It's only the right-winger politicians and corporatists, who grabbed onto Social Darwinism a long time ago, as a justification for their personal greed and ruthlessness, who haven't yet gotten the message that it isn't really the way things are. Paul Ryan's budget is the most social Darwinist document in recent years.

[Creed of Heresy]

It may not be right in its more brutish forms but still if I see a guy go running head-first into traffic on a dare from his dumbass frat buddies and he gets smeared over the pavement I'm still saying the guy has been given a Darwin Award all the same.

[Edwardo Piet]

Social darwinism commits the naturalistic fallacy. I don't like the naturalistic fallacy. It's a fallacy.

So, no, I don't subscribe to social darwinism.

[festive1]

I do not agree with social Darwinism. As others have pointed out, humans as a species have done well because of our highly social nature. Instead of saying, "Screw you, I'm taking care of me!" what has helped us survive is our ability to work together to overcome obstacles. An example that comes to mind is somewhere around 90,000 to 60,000 years ago, it is believed that the modern human population fell to as few as 600-10,000 individuals (there are 3 major theories, each with their own time and number of individuals, these are the widest ranges). We, as a species, teetered on the brink of extinction. Did we survive because these individuals were only looking out for themselves? No. They survived, and therefore we are here today, because they worked together.
And as Creed was saying, individuals removing themselves from the gene pool for blatant stupidity, is not always a bad thing...

[Reasonable_Jeff]

It's just that you've made this sort of claim a few times now, that without God/Jesus you'd run around killing and raping or whatever. You haven't put it in exactly those words but that would a broadly accurate summation. I feel it might clarify the matter if you were to expand on why you would behave this way. You can take that to mean "indulge my curiosity" if you like.

Sure Stimbo.

If I became convinced that God did not exist, I feel confident that I would adopt moral nihilism. Then it would seem to me that we have a lot of people that are dragging down the human race so-to-speak and it would be in the best interest for all of us to do away with them so that we can have a stronger species.

For example, if it really was the case that God did not exist...and I became convinced of it....it seems that religious systems really are nothing but foolishness that is weighing down further human progress.

The fastest way to rid the world of the problem would be to kill off the religious so that we could flourish without the burden of religion.

Perhaps what I've just described isn't truly Social Darwinism...I'm not as learned on the topic as I'm sure some of you are...but that's how this thread started in my mind. Since those are the conclusions that I would come to, I was curious what people who really didn't believe in God thought.

---

somewhere around 90,000 to 60,000 years ago, it is believed that the modern human population fell to as few as 600-10,000 individuals (there are 3 major theories, each with their own time and number of individuals, these are the widest ranges). We, as a species, teetered on the brink of extinction. Did we survive because these individuals were only looking out for themselves? No. They survived, and therefore we are here today, because they worked together.

Wow....I didn't know that. Cool point =D

[Edwardo Piet]

If I became convinced that God did not exist, I feel confident that I would adopt moral nihilism. Then it would seem to me that we have a lot of people that are dragging down the human race so-to-speak and it would be in the best interest for all of us to do away with them so that we can have a stronger species.

If you were morally nihilistic how could you adopt social darwinism?

And by the way, moral nihilism is amoral not immoral. And only when it comes to objective morality, it doesn't discount empathy, which is subjective and yet still relevant to actually caring about people.

The fastest way to rid the world of the problem would be to kill off the religious so that we could flourish without the burden of religion.

Once again, social darwinism isn't moral nihilism.

[Reasonable_Jeff]

If I became convinced that God did not exist, I feel confident that I would adopt moral nihilism. Then it would seem to me that we have a lot of people that are dragging down the human race so-to-speak and it would be in the best interest for all of us to do away with them so that we can have a stronger species.

If you were morally nihilistic how could you adopt social darwinism?

And by the way, moral nihilism is amoral not immoral. And only when it comes to objective morality, it doesn't discount empathy, which is subjective and yet still relevant to actually caring about people.

The fastest way to rid the world of the problem would be to kill off the religious so that we could flourish without the burden of religion.

Once again, social darwinism isn't moral nihilism.

This shows my lack of philosophical training and unfamiliarity with the subject.

[festive1]

somewhere around 90,000 to 60,000 years ago, it is believed that the modern human population fell to as few as 600-10,000 individuals (there are 3 major theories, each with their own time and number of individuals, these are the widest ranges). We, as a species, teetered on the brink of extinction. Did we survive because these individuals were only looking out for themselves? No. They survived, and therefore we are here today, because they worked together.

Wow....I didn't know that. Cool point =D

Since you are receptive to this, I'd also point out that these early people also had their own religions. They buried their dead and tended their graves, which suggests they believed in ancestor worship or an afterlife of some sort. But this was well before the advent of a singular deity, let alone the notion of "God" as you would describe it... Just food for thought... Religion might have saved the human race during the last ice age, allowing for a stronger sense of community, which would allow a viable biological population to repopulate the Earth as it is today. But there's nothing to say that we cannot exist without religion today... That we can bind ourselves into a community without the need of a deity for which there is no empirical evidence. Just sayin'.