The fallacies and failure of social Darwinism.

[Tyrannical]

A person without compassion or with too much compassion will find themselves disadvantaged in most societies.

People will either avoid cooperation or take advantage.

Legalized welfare is the ultimate and unlimited version of compassion. It serves the deserving and undeserving without question and forever.

[FBM]

A person without compassion or with too much compassion will find themselves disadvantaged in most societies.

People will either avoid cooperation or take advantage.

Legalized welfare is the ultimate and unlimited version of compassion. It serves the deserving and undeserving without question and forever.

You obviously haven't experienced that system first-hand. But let's say that there are some undeserving who have learned how to manipulate the system. There certainly are. By SD standards, they are right in doing what they are capable of doing. Manipulating the social environment to their advantage. No problem. They are socially fitter than those who can't. Fits right into the SD idea of the perfect society.

[Robert_S]

But the fact is, SD says that whatever a person can do, s/he is right to do. So, if the gummit tax people can make us pay taxes to support social welfare programs, then they are right in doing so just by the very fact that they are able to do so. People who refuse to follow teh gummit's laws are de facto rejecting SD. Doesn't matter which variety is in power; if you reject their policies, you reject SD.

Unless you get away with it.

But the thing is, If "is" is the same as "ought" then why have two words? If a person wants to reject ethics and morals, then why don't they just fucking own it and declare themselves unethical and immoral.

[FBM]

I'm not sure I'm reading that exactly the way you intended, Rob. At the heart of SD is the belief that whatever happens in nature (the 'is') is good (the Naturalistic Fallacy) and therefore we ought to base human societies on what other animals do. From 'is' to 'ought.' The sort of person who likes this idea is also convinced of the Hobbesian idea that the natural state of mankind is war, and in the natural state, the life of man is "nasty, brutish, poor and short." They say, for example, lions on the savannah are ruthless, want to use that to justify their own ruthlessness, and say we ought to make society like that. But that's like telling a dolphin how to behave based on the way kangaroos behave. It also is willfully blind to the principle of cooperation (and even altruism?) that makes animal societies possible. The 'is' of human society is what's going on around us right now. There's nothing unnatural in the universe; we're just as much a part of nature as dolphins, kangaroos and lions. The 'civilization vs nature' divide is another fallacy. Human societies are already obeying the laws of nature, whether we're aware of it or not. Humans don't have the power to make themselves unnatural.

[Seth]

A person without compassion or with too much compassion will find themselves disadvantaged in most societies.

People will either avoid cooperation or take advantage.

Legalized welfare is the ultimate and unlimited version of compassion. It serves the deserving and undeserving without question and forever.

No it doesn't. It serves some people for very uncompassionate and totally political reasons until the OPM runs out and then it leads directly to millions upon millions of deaths.

[Seth]

If you, personally, which is what social darwinism says, choose to shoot it out with the tax-collecting gummit people, you will lose. And, the (failed) theory itself says that they have a right to do what they can do. They're forcing you to pay taxes, they can do that, therefore they are right in doing so. "Is-ought" failure.

Maybe, maybe not. Again, Darwinism of any stripe is not a predictive thing. It is by it's very nature, focused solely and only on results. Therefore it is irrational to say "if you do this, this thing will happen" because the point of Darwinism is that only the RESULTS of decision making or natural forces counts.

"Maybe, maybe not" what? You might win a gunfight with teh gummit?

Yup.

Or maybe/maybe not that "survival of the fittest" means that they are right to do what is within their power, according to social darwinism? Something else?

Darwinism of any stripe is not about "rights," it's entirely about results, and nothing else.

I'm not making sense of the rest of that. Would you mind unpacking it a bit? Why is it irrational to focus on results ("if you do this...") and yet only the results matter? Seems like that would be the perfectly rational thing to focus on.

Except that the point of natural selection prevents one from focusing on results because it is impossible to predict the results. One may only OBSERVE the results after the fact...if one has adapted to survive.

[Jason]

A person without compassion or with too much compassion will find themselves disadvantaged in most societies.

People will either avoid cooperation or take advantage.

Legalized welfare is the ultimate and unlimited version of compassion. It serves the deserving and undeserving without question and forever.

No it doesn't. It serves some people for very uncompassionate and totally practical reasons.

No, it doesn't lead to Marxism. Once again, cost v benefit wins - it's more efficient to subsidize a subsection of the population than to deal with rioting hordes. If the cost has exceeded your means, I suggest you look at your military budget for answers.

[pErvinalia]

A person without compassion or with too much compassion will find themselves disadvantaged in most societies.

People will either avoid cooperation or take advantage.

Legalized welfare is the ultimate and unlimited version of compassion. It serves the deserving and undeserving without question and forever.

No it doesn't. It serves some people for very uncompassionate and totally practical reasons.

No, it doesn't lead to Marxism.

YET!!1!

If the cost has exceeded your means, I suggest you look at your military budget for answers.

Yep.

[FBM]

If you, personally, which is what social darwinism says, choose to shoot it out with the tax-collecting gummit people, you will lose. And, the (failed) theory itself says that they have a right to do what they can do. They're forcing you to pay taxes, they can do that, therefore they are right in doing so. "Is-ought" failure.

Maybe, maybe not. Again, Darwinism of any stripe is not a predictive thing. It is by it's very nature, focused solely and only on results. Therefore it is irrational to say "if you do this, this thing will happen" because the point of Darwinism is that only the RESULTS of decision making or natural forces counts.

"Maybe, maybe not" what? You might win a gunfight with teh gummit?

Yup.

Good luck with that.

Or maybe/maybe not that "survival of the fittest" means that they are right to do what is within their power, according to social darwinism? Something else?

Darwinism of any stripe is not about "rights," it's entirely about results, and nothing else.

You're equivocating the word "right" to "rights."

I'm not making sense of the rest of that. Would you mind unpacking it a bit? Why is it irrational to focus on results ("if you do this...") and yet only the results matter? Seems like that would be the perfectly rational thing to focus on.

Except that the point of natural selection prevents one from focusing on results because it is impossible to predict the results. One may only OBSERVE the results after the fact...if one has adapted to survive.

You're introducing the concept of prediction, not me. Focusing on results =/= predicting results. Non sequitur.

Whatever happens is natural and right, according to SDists' adherence to the Naturalistic Fallacy (Edit: more accurately, the Appeal to Nature Fallacy, slightly different, but maybe both.). What's happening is that teh gummit people have the power to compel you to pay taxes or fight it out. You have chosen to do the former out of self-interest. It's happening, it's natural, and therefore by SD, it's right.

[FBM]

182916_611964162159621_940713520_n.jpg (39.68 KiB) Viewed 448 times

[Seth]

You're introducing the concept of prediction, not me. Focusing on results =/= predicting results. Non sequitur.

No I'm not. You're the one predicting my potential for success in resisting the tax man with force. I'm saying that you are being illogical in assuming that just because I am one person and the "gummint" is many people that this means that in a conflict the "gummint" will always win. That's not the case. It's particularly not the case in the US, where a bunch of "one persons" resolved not to be abused by "gummint" tax collectors and whipped the "many persons" asses and formed a brand new country.

Where did I make that prediction? That aside, I was using "you" in the singular. If you stage an armed rebellion against teh gummit, you will lose. I see every reason to think that this is a reasonable prediction.

Whatever happens is natural and right, according to SDists' adherence to the Naturalistic Fallacy (Edit: more accurately, the Appeal to Nature Fallacy, slightly different, but maybe both.). What's happening is that teh gummit people have the power to compel you to pay taxes or fight it out. You have chosen to do the former out of self-interest. It's happening, it's natural, and therefore by SD, it's right.

I think your mistake is in assuming that someone who believes in social Darwinism assigns moral value to the events and that therefore it's a naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy inherently requires a moral value judgment, but social Darwinism, or a belief therein, does not. One can be (as I am) a "social Darwinist" who does not assign moral value to the reality of occurrences. This is why I often say "adapt or die."

Is-ought. You make plenty of ought-statements based on your belief (carefully chosen word) in SD. You don't think you ought to pay taxes, but you apply survival of the fittest to the structure and development of society (where it doesn't really apply). The fittest are making you pay taxes, and until you prove that you are fitter, they are right in doing so.

If the gummint has the power to compel me to pay taxes, then I'll pay taxes. If it doesn't, for whatever reason, I may choose not to pay taxes. Predicting that the power of gummint can either compel me to pay taxes or force me to fight it out is a binary choice that does not reflect reality. There are many other possible outcomes beside the two you mention. Trying to predict which outcome will or might occur has no place in Darwinism of any sort because by it's very nature natural selection is not predictive, it's result-oriented. It doesn't matter to nature whether the individual organism survives or dies, only actual fitness that results in survival matters. That is the very definition of evolution.

And as long as you complain about being compelled to pay taxes, you are contradicting your own belief in SD.

Social Darwinism is no different. It doesn't matter what you want, or what anyone wants, it is what it is and there is no "better" or "worse" and there is not "just" or "unjust" or "fair" and "unfair." Those are all moral value judgments that have no place in or effect on evolution, social or biological.

Yet you continue to say that the current system is "wrong" and propose a "better" one.

To wit:

And that attempt to shift the burden is immoral.

[Seth]

182916_611964162159621_940713520_n.jpg

This is a perfect example of enlightened self interest. Unfortunately he is not permitted to make this choice freely, instead the burden is imposed upon him as compulsory because others feel that they have the right to appropriate and direct the fruits of HIS labor to THEIR chosen programs.

Libertarians like to pay taxes for schools too because it's in their vested and enlightened self interest to do so. We just object to other people using the blunt instrument of the Mace of State to force us to do so.

[FBM]

182916_611964162159621_940713520_n.jpg

This is a perfect example of enlightened self interest. Unfortunately he is not permitted to make this choice freely, instead the burden is imposed upon him as compulsory because others feel that they have the right to appropriate and direct the fruits of HIS labor to THEIR chosen programs.

Libertarians like to pay taxes for schools too because it's in their vested and enlightened self interest to do so. We just object to other people using the blunt instrument of the Mace of State to force us to do so.

Despite the fact that SD says "might makes right." It's a contradictory position for an SDist to claim that what is is wrong.

[Seth]

182916_611964162159621_940713520_n.jpg

This is a perfect example of enlightened self interest. Unfortunately he is not permitted to make this choice freely, instead the burden is imposed upon him as compulsory because others feel that they have the right to appropriate and direct the fruits of HIS labor to THEIR chosen programs.

Libertarians like to pay taxes for schools too because it's in their vested and enlightened self interest to do so. We just object to other people using the blunt instrument of the Mace of State to force us to do so.

Despite the fact that SD says "might makes right." It's a contradictory position for an SDist to claim that what is is wrong.

I don't know why a rational SDist would use the word "right" or "wrong." A rational person who understands Darwinism at all would say only "Might makes results." Darwinism, social or otherwise, has no right or wrong, just cause and effect.

[FBM]

182916_611964162159621_940713520_n.jpg

This is a perfect example of enlightened self interest. Unfortunately he is not permitted to make this choice freely, instead the burden is imposed upon him as compulsory because others feel that they have the right to appropriate and direct the fruits of HIS labor to THEIR chosen programs.

Libertarians like to pay taxes for schools too because it's in their vested and enlightened self interest to do so. We just object to other people using the blunt instrument of the Mace of State to force us to do so.

Despite the fact that SD says "might makes right." It's a contradictory position for an SDist to claim that what is is wrong.

I don't know why a rational SDist would use the word "right" or "wrong." A rational person who understands Darwinism at all would say only "Might makes results." Darwinism, social or otherwise, has no right or wrong, just cause and effect.

And yet they do. Or they used to, before it became an intellectual embarrasment to be associated with it. The naturalistic and is-ought fallacies are at its foundation. And therefore SD is based on a fallacy. Therefore, for an SDist to say that the people in power are wrong for doing something they are capable of is a self-contradiction.