The fallacies and failure of social Darwinism.

[Animavore]

Darwinism doesn't say, "might is right". That is complete bullshit. When trees in England's bark is turned black due to pollution and the moths living on them become darker over a few generations because the lighter coloured ones are easier to see against the bark and so get picked off by predators does that mean the darker ones which are left are the strongest, mightiest of the group? When koalas get culled by a virus killing off almost 90% and the ones with otherwise neutral mutations which become beneficial against the virus, are the ones left behind necessarily the alphas? When humans slowly become paler as they travel north because the darker ones, due to a lack of sun from and the dark skin blocking off what little they get leading to rickets from lack of vitamin D which warps females pelvises so they can't give birth and die in labour, does that mean the paler ones who get to pass their genes are the fittest, most powerful?

The list goes on and on. Darwin talks about fitness as in, that which is most fit for its environment, not that which is necessarily the strongest. So if you do think that Darwinism means "might is right" then no, you do not understand Darwinism.

[FBM]

Social darwinism turns 'survival of the fittest' into 'might is right.' The is-ought fallacy.

[Animavore]

Social darwinism turns 'survival of the fittest' into 'might is right.' The is-ought fallacy.

Except Darwin didn't coin the phrase, "survival of the fittest." This was coined by Herbert Spencer, the grandfather of Social Darwinism.

[Robert_S]

Darwinism doesn't say, "might is right". That is complete bullshit. When trees in England's bark is turned black due to pollution and the moths living on them become darker over a few generations because the lighter coloured ones are easier to see against the bark and so get picked off by predators does that mean the darker ones which are left are the strongest, mightiest of the group? When koalas get culled by a virus killing off almost 90% and the ones with otherwise neutral mutations which become beneficial against the virus, are the ones left behind necessarily the alphas? When humans slowly become paler as they travel north because the darker ones, due to a lack of sun from and the dark skin blocking off what little they get leading to rickets from lack of vitamin D which warps females pelvises so they can't give birth and die in labour, does that mean the paler ones who get to pass their genes are the fittest, most powerful?

The list goes on and on. Darwin talks about fitness as in, that which is most fit for its environment, not that which is necessarily the strongest. So if you do think that Darwinism means "might is right" then no, you do not understand Darwinism.

Social darwinism turns 'survival of the fittest' into 'might is right.' The is-ought fallacy.

Precisely.

What the "Social Darwinists" are about has always been morally justifying social inequality through circular logic. "It's right and good that I'm wealthy because if it were not so, I would not have been naturally selected for wealth!" Contrast that with justifications like "I'm wealthy because I have contributed greatly to my society" or "I have become wealthy in this society, so I feel an obligation to make a contribution back to it".

Where some conservatives wish to reserve the option to be selfish so as to guard against the tyranny of professional victims, SD has historically made a positive virtue of it.

What Seth claims to subscribe to is something different. He leaves off the moral component. SD may have morphed into what he describes, but the old school SD people were about providing moral justification, or even moral imperatives to colonialism, racism, rampant inequality, lack of social mobility and as much general douchebaggery as they could get away with.

[FBM]

Social darwinism turns 'survival of the fittest' into 'might is right.' The is-ought fallacy.

Except Darwin didn't coin the phrase, "survival of the fittest." This was coined by Herbert Spencer, the grandfather of Social Darwinism.

OK, but it's still the same fallacy.

[Animavore]

Social darwinism turns 'survival of the fittest' into 'might is right.' The is-ought fallacy.

Except Darwin didn't coin the phrase, "survival of the fittest." This was coined by Herbert Spencer, the grandfather of Social Darwinism.

OK, but it's still the same fallacy.

It may even just be dead wrong in humans even if true in other species. It may be that the reason we have thrived is because of our compassion, helpfulness, kindness and charity, at least in the in-group, which means social darwinists would be precisely the people we would want out of our society as they would be a hazard to our further survival.

[FBM]

Social darwinism turns 'survival of the fittest' into 'might is right.' The is-ought fallacy.

Except Darwin didn't coin the phrase, "survival of the fittest." This was coined by Herbert Spencer, the grandfather of Social Darwinism.

OK, but it's still the same fallacy.

It may even just be dead wrong in humans even if true in other species. It may be that the reason we have thrived is because of our compassion, helpfulness, kindness and charity, at least in the in-group, which means social darwinists would be precisely the people we would want out of our society as they would be a hazard to our further survival.

[FBM]

Precisely.

What the "Social Darwinists" are about has always been morally justifying social inequality through circular logic. "It's right and good that I'm wealthy because if it were not so, I would not have been naturally selected for wealth!" Contrast that with justifications like "I'm wealthy because I have contributed greatly to my society" or "I have become wealthy in this society, so I feel an obligation to make a contribution back to it".

Where some conservatives wish to reserve the option to be selfish so as to guard against the tyranny of professional victims, SD has historically made a positive virtue of it.

What Seth claims to subscribe to is something different. He leaves off the moral component. SD may have morphed into what he describes, but the old school SD people were about providing moral justification, or even moral imperatives to colonialism, racism, rampant inequality, lack of social mobility and as much general douchebaggery as they could get away with.

My understanding of Seth's argument is that it's "wrong" for teh gummit to take his tax money and spend it on social welfare programs - even the police and army? - because he thinks everybody should fend for themselves, either individually or in small groups, based on his understanding of the animal models provided by nature. To me, that "wrong" is a moral claim.

[Animavore]

Sounds like The Road Warrior model of humanity.

[Tyrannical]

Our generous welfare system selects for only one thing, fecundity.

[FBM]

Wow. It never ceases to amaze me how believers can continue to cling to their beliefs even after all the logic has been spelled out in easy terms. I guess if someone wants bad enough for something to be true, they're willing to ignore just about anything.

[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.

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.

And yet at the same time so is the reverse argument, which too is "social Darwinism". Darwinism, you see, doesn't care about the individual, or for that matter the group. As Dawkins says, evolution is genes propagating themselves and nothing more.

Therefore, while it may be correct to say that "Social Darwinism that allows weak members of society to die is better than supporting and allowing such genetic failures to propagate" is an illogical expression of the idea of evolution, so is the opposite argument which says "It is better that we support the weak members of society and help them to propagate than to let nature take its course and kill them off."

Both positions misuse evolution to support their particular political or social positions. SDers use it to challenge the notion that people should be compelled to be charitable and helpful to the segments of society that are having difficulty surviving (or prospering) because supporting the dependent class only leads to more of the dependent class, which is harmful to society.

Liberal bleeding-hearts use it to challenge the notion that people have no obligation to the less fortunate and therefore it is justifiable to impose a duty of care for the dependent class upon everyone else.

Neither of these positions have anything whatsoever to do with Darwinism or evolution. Both of them are sociopolitical and economic arguments that are laden with subjective and objective values.

[Seth]

Precisely.

What the "Social Darwinists" are about has always been morally justifying social inequality through circular logic. "It's right and good that I'm wealthy because if it were not so, I would not have been naturally selected for wealth!" Contrast that with justifications like "I'm wealthy because I have contributed greatly to my society" or "I have become wealthy in this society, so I feel an obligation to make a contribution back to it".

Where some conservatives wish to reserve the option to be selfish so as to guard against the tyranny of professional victims, SD has historically made a positive virtue of it.

What Seth claims to subscribe to is something different. He leaves off the moral component. SD may have morphed into what he describes, but the old school SD people were about providing moral justification, or even moral imperatives to colonialism, racism, rampant inequality, lack of social mobility and as much general douchebaggery as they could get away with.

My understanding of Seth's argument is that it's "wrong" for teh gummit to take his tax money and spend it on social welfare programs - even the police and army? - because he thinks everybody should fend for themselves, either individually or in small groups, based on his understanding of the animal models provided by nature. To me, that "wrong" is a moral claim.

Yes, it is a moral claim. But then I'm not supporting the usual definitions of social Darwinism, which are, as I mention in my last post, irrational, illogical and fallacious.

What I routinely ask, and what is roundly ignored by "socialists" is what logic is used to JUSTIFY enslaving me to the service of the dependent class.

As to the police and army, it can go both ways, but it's not the same thing as direct wealth redistribution from one person to another by force. At least with the military and police the person being compelled to pay for it is receiving some actual, tangible benefit for his investment in labor and property. In the Libertarian sense, it's simply a cost of doing business just like paying for the road you use or the food you eat that you obtain from another. The proximity of the nexus to the individual's actions and needs and the methods of funding both are up for argument, but the principle of getting what you pay for and paying for what you use that is fundamental to Libertarianism is at the core.

But that has nothing to do with requiring me to labor and sacrifice on behalf of some abstract group of people whom I don't know, have no financial or social connection with, and with whom I am NOT free to contract with for my labor. The government, for mostly political reasons, simply tells me I'm obligated to labor on behalf of "the poor" or "the disadvantaged" who are in fact "the dependent class" and it gives me no option to decline to do so, nor does it give me the power to choose TO WHOM I am being enslaved and what I may demand by way of labor or behavior as recompense for my labor by contractual agreement.

If I could choose the recipient of my labor, and require that they provide to me some tangible benefit, such as cutting my lawn or doing some other service that I want or need to be done, I would feel a little less like a slave to the government. At the moment, the Marxist Progressives simply demand my labor and property, which they take and distribute to the dependent class not to make them less dependent or help them to learn to support themselves, but in order to further obligate and enslave them to the Marxist Progressive political machine by making them more and more dependent on government largess for their very survival.

This has nothing to do with charity or compassion, it's totally and completely about politics and obliging the dependent class to vote for the Marxist Progressives by dangling the carrot of more and more largess followed by the stick of cutting off those essential benefits if the dependent class does not vote as the Marxist Progressives demand.

And the purpose of the coercion of these dependent-class votes is to consolidate and institutionalize both the Marxist Progressive party line, but primarily to keep the Marxist Progressive elite in power, where they can enjoy privilege and wealth under the guise of "working for the people."

It's completely about ruling-class greed and power mongering. It always has been, since the Russian Revolution and Marx, and it always will be.

If you instituted full Communism here by fiat you would STILL have a ruling elite who enjoy power and privilege, which is exemplified by Communist China, Venezuela and every other Communist regime that's ever existed, including the most durable non-Chinese one: Cuba.

This is because the useful idiots of Marxism are simply incapable of understanding simple human nature and they stupidly think that the ruling elite have their interests at heart. They don't. They never have, they never will because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The closest contemporary example I can think of by way of exception to that rule was the reign of Haile Selassie in Ethopia, which was by most accounts one of the most benevolent monarchies in the history of mankind.

But that's an aberration that depends on the character of the single ruling individual that does not often survive that particular person's death.

[Seth]

Our generous welfare system selects for only one thing, fecundity.

Correct. This may or may not be a long-term species survival trait. Whether it's good or bad depends on social, political and economic beliefs that have nothing whatever to do with evolution.

[Robert_S]

I have to admit there is something to Seth's post. A lot of these social programs have poor exit strategies.

But angry conservative politicians benefit from this as much as liberal ones.