(November 13, 2012 at 5:02 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: I meant that if social Darwinism is taken to be in any way moral as if what survives and reproduces should survive and reproduce then it's committing the naturalistic fallacy and it ignores the well-being of weaker individuals.
The blood lines of kings, queens, emperors and czars demonstrably show fairly poor rates of long term Darwinian survival. This suggests brutal application of simplistic social darwiniansm is infact self-defeating.
The more viciously social darwinian you are, the harder Darwin seem to swing his hammer upon your blood line.
