Social Darwinism: Right or Wrong

[Something completely different]

I will ignore "vincent" since this thread was opened on a certain subject and not arround his personality, to post about something concerning the subject.


Does anyone else here know the philosophical idea of "Evolutionary Epistomology"?

Basically it says that "knowlege" is aquired thanks to a evolutionary process of how we perceive things.

Could that be called social darwinism if used to structure sociatal concepts?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

"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.

You yourself confirm my point. You say "they will kill he who pose a serious threat".

[Anomalocaris]

Could any moron be more obtuse than this "Vinny"?

[KichigaiNeko]

Could any moron be more obtuse than this "Vinny"?

Many are trying Chuck...

[mr.atheist]

Could any moron be more obtuse than this "Vinny"?

Many are trying Chuck...

Heh and many are succeeding.

[Cyberman]

I don't know, he sets the bar pretty high, from what I overhear.

[Ben Davis]

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.

Thanks for the summary Mister Agenda. So I was on the right lines with my statement regarding a false dichotomy. Of course evolution doesn't work that way in reality; we observe that the more complex the neurology &/or sociology, the greater the likelihood for altruism. It's almost as if evolution 'knows' that protecting as much life as possible will mean better survival rates!

This is a million miles away from the idea that evolution automatically means 'letting the weakest die'; although there's plenty of animal life for which existence is short & brutal, to overlay that evolutionary state on the human condition is a gross oversimplification and demonstrates limited empathy & ethical thinking, too. Possibly sociopathy.

[mr.atheist]

No social Darwinism is not a good idea.I find it ironic how alot of the right wing politicians in countries such as the US are against evolution yet an idea like social Darwinism fits into their train of thought.

[Norfolk And Chance]

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.

You don't fucking say.

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.

It would be the fastest way but murder isn't very good is it, so we'd have to rely on educating the religious instead. A slow process indeed.

[Whateverist]

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.

It would be the fastest way but murder isn't very good is it, so we'd have to rely on educating the religious instead. A slow process indeed.

Good? Bad? Without the bible .. who's to say? Oops, fell into my Vinny imitation there for a minute. I really have to lay off reading that guy for a while. (Not everyone gets my sense of humor.)