Social Darwinism: Right or Wrong

[JohnDG]

Any system where power is concentrated into the hands of a few is a bad idea.

[Zen Badger]

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.

So the only thing stopping you from turning into a murderous psychopath is your fear of retribution in the next world.

Fine.... I'll remember that......

[JDS]

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.

Social Darwinism is not how we would want to organize our society. I can understand and accept evolution through natural selection without needing to apply it to economics or political science.

[Something completely different]

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.

?
This phrase to me seems to be a rather dishonest use of rethoric.
By stating the extreme position that for you there is eigther "gods" morality or "social darwinism", you exclude other options and either with intent or without, accuse those not using your concept of "devine morality" of being part of the other extreme.

But maybe I`m wrong.

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

I was very interested in this subject for a long time, out of various reasons, such as my countries history and being a victim of bullying - a interest in morality and the reasoning behind inmoral decission-taking.

I`d be very interested in a debate about this subject. Do you have any specific questions or some starting argument?

[TaraJo]

To discuss this, we first have to determine what is meant by 'social darwinsm.' If you're suggesting that some people are inherently carry traits that future generations would probably be better off without, you're probably right. That being said, even the very wise can't see all ends and those undesirable traits may play a positive role in the end. However, because of the way evolution works, even our choicde to forgo official social darwinist theories impacts our evolution (and, yes, the human race is still evolving). At its core, evolution causes species to thrive if they are best suited to their environment. When the environment is changed (or not changed), we evolve. While most of the evolutionary changes we make aren't obvious, others are subtle and very important.

I also think we make a lot of our own choices with social evolution, but sometimes they aren't for the best. Smart people know about overpopulation and they don't have kids and adopt instead, that impacts social evolution. On the other hand, if a whole big group of fundamentalists believe birth control is a sin, that they should have lots of kids and they have as many children as they can, that has a impact on social evolution as well. Which, sadly, says that sometimes, intellignce isn't an evolutionary advantage.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

As an atheist, it's clear that social darwinism is right.

Helping the poor, the disabled and disadvantaged is, ironically, the creation of the religious.

A truly secular world will treat humans according to their own worth. Only the strongest should survive.

In fact, I'm ashamed of atheists on welfare.

[Cyberman]

I have no idea what the previous poster just said, nor do I care to know, but I'm going to apply my legendary powers of prophecy to say that the views presumably expressed in that post are not at all representative of atheists as a whole and most assuredly not of me in particular.

[festive1]

As an atheist, it's clear that social darwinism is right.

Helping the poor, the disabled and disadvantaged is, ironically, the creation of the religious.

A truly secular world will treat humans according to their own worth. Only the strongest should survive.

In fact, I'm ashamed of atheists on welfare.

Ummm... You should change your religious views from Neo-Humanism then... Social Darwinism is the antithesis of humanism, neo or not.

[Jackalope]

Ummm... You should change your religious views from Neo-Humanism then... Social Darwinism is the antithesis of humanism, neo or not.

Trolls gotta troll, you know.

[Cyberman]

At least I now know what the post said...