Darwinism, Survival of the fittest & natural selection.

[Shahed]

Greetings All !

Is it morally wrong to espouse this ideology ?

OR

Does this theory clash with your moral principles ?

For those who don't know of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism

Thanks for voting !

[woad&fangs]

NO

Because different people have different morals.

[Shahed]

Very good.

Edited 1st post for greater clarity.

[Papewaio]

It is no more wrong to espouse Darwinistic Evolution then to espouse Newtonian Gravity.

[Ronin]

(i´m gonna choose my words very carefully here because I know how these topics tend to get derailed here)

The evolution theory is the best model we have to describe what goes on in the natural world...in reality.
So if your morals conflict with a detailed explanation of reality.....I propose that there is something wrong with your morals.

what next? 'is it moral do say the sky appears blue?....tune in next Tuesday for for the big debate' :juggle2:

[Husar]

Aww, now I voted before reading the replies.

When I read Darwinism and morals I thought about letting the weak die on the streets or something like that, so yeah, kinda clashed with my morals. :sweatdrop:

[Shahed]

Firstly, you say what you think & believe, and that is good for you.

Secondly, yes, that is the point. For some people, Darwinism is ethically wrong because to them it implies is that the reality of life is to care only for oneself. Let others deal with their issues, however life theatening and bad their circumstances may be. If they're dying, or poor, or hungry it's not your ethical responsibility to help them.

Hence the question for the orgahs, what do YOU think ?

[LittleGrizzly]

I believe in natural selection, but i don't think it should be allowed to happen without interference.

We care for mentally challenged and disabled people even though natural selection would get rid of them, i support it outside of humanity as well, helping animals that thier parents abonded to die.

So i guess that would mean my answer is yes, darwinism does clash with my morality (is it my morality im answering it clashes with or anyones ?)

answer is yes either way...

[Papewaio]

Changing the station on the radio only changes the frequency you are listening to. It does not change that you are listening to a radio.

Our actions do not stop selection happening, it only applies a different pressure and hence a different outcome to whom do survive.

[Productivity]

This thread is going to explode when Navaros sees it.:help:

[AntiochusIII]

Sinan, I need clarification: Are you speaking of Darwinism the scientific model or Social Darwinism the social theory?

[Shahed]

Applied to humans, it's the same.

Added link in 1st post.

[Papewaio]

No, it is not.

Darwinism is an outdated model of Evolution which is out of vogue.

Social Darwinism is an outdated model of societies which comes in and out of vogue.

Evolution occurs on humans. No matter the basis of the ethics for instance Catholic, Socialism, Atheism or Social Darwinism.... evolution marches on. All we can do is change some of the frequency modulators.

[IrishArmenian]

I may be completely wrong and ignorant in my thoughts so let me say, as part of a group that was nearly 'naturally deselected' I think it is wrong to continue such a vicious cycle.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Evolution as an explanation of the ways of life and nature, or as a scientific theory is one thing, building an ideology upon it is another. Although it seems never to be fully proven or unproven, I'm thinking pretty close to the scientific theory (evolution of the species etc.). But when it comes to Social Darwinism and its variants, that's a different story.

I would vote :gah2:
.

[Fragony]

Of course it conflicts with our morals, if it didn't there wouldn't be so many unemployed and disabled people.

[Boyar Son]

yes it conflicts with morals (if ur morals are about helping others)

[AntiochusIII]

Applied to humans, it's the same.No, there is a crucial distinction between them: Darwinism explains what happens, Social Darwinism justifies it as what should happen. One is factual (though disproved and updated over time) and makes no moral judgments; another claims to be morally correct.

If I am to provide an answer now, I would say I find Darwinism to be a historically important step towards modern biology, possibly the most important step; on the other hand I find Social Darwinism to be a morally abhorrent ideology.

Or to put it in a historical perspective: Darwin himself was a devout Christian and did not try to apply his theories to society or give them moral values. It was the work of others that do so -- example, Herbert Spencer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer), who coined the infamous term "survival of the fittest."

[CountArach]

I don't see it as Immoral, but nor do I believe that it is a good thing to run a system by.

[Lord Winter]

In science no, if start taking it in politics ethier in the nazi scenes or the social darwinism scense then yes very much so.

[Duke John]

Survival of the fittest and evolution is what give us humans a starting point. From there we developed a society where we can afford the luxury of no longer applying the survival of the fittest.

If society breaks down how long do you think it will take before survival of the fittest is deciding who lives and who dies? If you need to cross a desert with limited water and food supply, how long will it take before the handicapped person in the wheelchair is no longer pushed. How many people will help the handicapped persons when a large fire breaks out and poses an immediate threat?

It is then when our morals start to clash with our survival insticts. Luckily we have a society where working together tends to be the wisest choice for everybody. Take away society and you have an interesting experiment.

[AntiochusIII]

Duke John, the thing is, "fittest" is a useless concept. At the surface sure it makes sense -- a handicapped person is disadvantaged compare to a strong human in a natural environment. But once things are more complicated "fittest" becomes an exercise in futility.

Isn't there a theory where somebody speculates that the short-sighted gene also somehow makes someone more resistant to the Black Death, and consequently more short-sighted people survived it or something? That certainly puts a twist on "fittest." If that theory is true then short-sighted people are certainly more fit to survive in an environment where the Black Death is prevalent, but at the same time short-sightedness in and of itself is clearly a handicap...

Another example more grounded on evidence would be the whole Sickle Cell Anemia thing: apparently people with said genetic disorder (which is a pretty troublesome handicap) has more resistance to malaria (?) and therefore more "fit" to survive in Africa compare to another person without the disorder. The long-term genetic consequence seems to be that in African gene pools the occurrence of Sickle Cell Anemia is drastically higher than in other pools.

Simply put, "fittest" is determined first and foremost by the environment and we all know how diverse and ever-changing Earth's environment is.

Moreover, once this crosses from a scientific problem to a moral proclamation -- like those idiots in the late 19th/early 20th century tend to do -- the "fittest" concept changes from inconsistent to downright criminally faulty, especially after the prejudiced and bigoted human mind processes and skews it over. God knows how many terrible ideologies and self-indulgent theories claim their legitimacies from the popularity of Social Darwinism. The whole concept of "superior" people and "inferior" people [that is to say, the "fit" ones and the "unfit" ones], a concept which should have died a deserving death as science, humanism, and liberalism advance in the world, received new "scientific" and "philosophical" justification from this idea. I hate to pull a Godwin, but I think Nazism is one of them.

I agree with you though, once civilization, silly gadgets, and strange overdeveloped instincts (that is, thoughts :P) come into play, it's even more complex and personally I think the whole idea can rightfully just be thrown out of the window.

[Duke John]

Oh yes, you raise some good points. The theory may be so false that the question posed in the original post is more hypothetical than realistic. But that would mean that the discussion is dead from the beginning.

Assuming that there is enough truth in it, I reasoned that our society prevents survival of the fittest rearing its ugly head. And with fittest being in the context of the stronger one deliberately disregarding the weak one.

Your examples about short-sightedness and Sickle Cell Anemia can never clash with morality as nothing is done deliberately, people with those properties just happen to survive and there is no morality in the equation.

strange overdeveloped instincts = thoughts (nice one :wink:)

[AntiochusIII]

Assuming that there is enough truth in it, I reasoned that our society prevents survival of the fittest rearing its ugly head. And with fittest being in the context of the stronger one deliberately disregarding the weak one.Indeed, I agree with you completely that civilization or at least our particular modern form of civilization has done much in preventing the kind of jungle environment that underlies the natural world.

Although another interesting point is that this "weakness" as some would say might potentially be far more useful in the long run: for one, higher thoughts that do not serve immediate purposes are pretty much useless in a "survival of the fittest" environment. Writers, artists, musicians, philosophers, scientists... not many of these will make it for long without the order provided by civilization. It is an interesting question whether we as a whole benefited more from this "unnatural" state of things or not.


Your examples about short-sightedness and Sickle Cell Anemia can never clash with morality as nothing is done deliberately, people with those properties just happen to survive and there is no morality in the equation.You raise a good point. All my examples are genetic issues with no human intent and no morality behind it.

I think what I fear when I said that the Social Darwinist theory is morally abhorrent are two things: the culling and oppression of those deemed unfit and the basic human mistake of assuming that, because a trait is beneficial for the present environment, or even just because it is familiar, it is "superior" and "fit" in all circumstances. Those two combined makes for both practical and moral disaster if past examples are to go by.


strange overdeveloped instincts = thoughts (nice one :wink:) :beam:

[KukriKhan]

I see.

A papaplegic may be disadvantaged in New York City today, but "superior" on a rocket flight to Mars, in the not unforeseeable future.

and
strange overdeveloped instincts = thoughts (nice one )

tickled me too. :beam: Now to extrapolate that idea to the artifacts of thought - speech and language.:dizzy2:

[HoreTore]

I was going to write a lot here, but then I realized that Antiochus had already taken all the good points :sweatdrop:

[Duke John]

It is an interesting question whether we as a whole benefited more from this "unnatural" state of things or not.
Indeed. I would think that the 'unnatural' state encourages a larger number of mutations from which we can pick the ones that benefits us the most in the present. And with mutations I mean the little sparks in our brain from which all ideas originate. Our evolution is no longer in the physical world but mainly in the mind. Our ideas helped us conquer the world. Wether that was the wisest choice for the human race as a whole as opposed to developing a sixth finger shall be seen in a few thousand years. :wink:

[Viking]

[...]strange overdeveloped instincts (that is, thoughts :P) [...]


I dare challenge that; I mean thoughts occur when there's a collision between interests (instinct). For advanced thoughts to occur an, an advanced brain is needed. Though in an advanced brain the instincts will remain much of the same; i.e. mating, social instincts and general survival.

Edit: spelling

[Husar]

If you need to cross a desert with limited water and food supply, how long will it take before the handicapped person in the wheelchair is no longer pushed.
You try pushing a wheelchair through sanddunes in the first place...


How many people will help the handicapped persons when a large fire breaks out and poses an immediate threat?
Blanket statement.:thumbsdown:

If she's my good-looking, cute girlfriend I'll help her either way.
If it's a fat, ugly man who tried to kill me with his pumpgun 10 seconds ago, I won't help him either way. :sweatdrop:

[Innocentius]

No.

Morals exist only in our heads, so nothing can conflict with them at all.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

Our evolution is no longer in the physical world but mainly in the mind.
With all due respect, that's too bold a statement. That can never be proven for or against in short term observations, while several outcomes of physical adaptation, at least, can be deduced from higher resistance or even immunity to once lethal diseases. We're living, in a sense, much harsher conditions than our supposed Fred Flinstone ancestors considering all the radioactivity penetrating us daily. :dizzy2:
.

[CrossLOPER]

.

With all due respect, that's too bold a statement. That can never be proven for or against in short term observations, while several outcomes of physical adaptation, at least, can be deduced from higher resistance or even immunity to once lethal diseases. We're living, in a sense, much harsher conditions than our supposed Fred Flinstone ancestors considering all the radioactivity penetrating us daily. :dizzy2:
.
Bad things do happen unexpectedly....

WOOHOOO POST-APOCALYPTIC WIMMENZ RAIDING!!!!!

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

For some people, Darwinism is ethically wrong because to them it implies is that the reality of life is to care only for oneself. Let others deal with their issues, however life theatening and bad their circumstances may be. If they're dying, or poor, or hungry it's not your ethical responsibility to help them.

Quite apart from the fact that the theory of evolution doesn't really raise any ethical imperatives, genes which cause altruism are normally selectively advantageous.

Evolution and selection happens, there's no getting around that-it's simply a function of the way we reproduce, the fact that not everyone survives to breed, and spontaneous mutation in our gametes. The problem comes when you start saying "Well, these people are weak, so lets improve the genepool by getting rid of them." Which, as I noted above, is nothing to do with evolution really.

[Myrddraal]

"Well, these people are weak, so lets improve the genepool by getting rid of them."

And that's nonsense anyway. If you were an extreme heartless ruler of the world dedicated to improving the gene pool, you'd just stop people with 'undesirable' genes from breeding, no need to 'get rid of them'

[Rodion Romanovich]

Greetings All !

Is it morally wrong to espouse this ideology ?

OR

Does this theory clash with your moral principles ?

For those who don't know of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism

Thanks for voting !
I'm not sure about the English terminology, does Darwinism refer to the modern evolution models or outdated early versions of it? If it refers to modern evolution models, why would it be morally wrong to teach someone the currently best model of how development of life forms works? The Bible says "Thou shalt not bear false witness to thy neighbor", so it basically says it's immoral to not teach the evolution model as the most accurate model.

I find it morally wrong to teach outdated versions of the model though, or misconceptions of it. Many people think it's survival of the "strong" as in physically strong, and not as in "the best adapted to his environment". They also aren't taught about species mutually affecting each others if the first species is an important enough part of the other's environment and vice versa - then when one changes, it will cause a change of the first which causes a change of the second etc etc. They also know little about evolution of entire herds, and how in the long term, maximum expected utility for the herd is more important than short term maximum utility for the individual, which means Pareto optimal actions, and altruistic behavior, is necessary and common. Most people misunderstand the balance between altruism and egoism in evolution so much, and have so little connection with real world examples for humans and other species, that they think the optimum behavior is for everyone to be as immoral as they possibly can, but to be as immoral as you possibly can - including excessive bloodshed and murder - is quite obviously not a very good way of ensuring your own survival. Most immoral ideas claimed to come from the evolution model are misconceptions or misunderstanding of it, or lacking the big picture.