Social Darwinism

[Deleted472477User]

So, in a recent speech President Obama mentioned 'Social Darwinism'. His speech aside, do you feel such a thing exists? Why or why not? Do you subscribe to these beliefs? Why or why not?

 

Definition is here

 

Discuss. I think it does exist, and I think some people would like very much to see it implemented in our own society. I myself think we are better than that, and have the capacity to have compassion and help those in need, and that if we all helped each other out the world would be a better place.

[SimpleGlitch]

I agree that it is a real thing, but I don't really think that it is something that can be "implemented" or "unimplemented." From what I read on your link it seems to be the natural progression of an idea as it moves through out society. I also don't thing its something that is inherently good or bad, but rather a social mechanism.

 

Social Darwinism can be used to describe the practice of discrimination against a culture, at the same time can be used to describe a movement for equal rights. Compassion through out a society could even described by Social Darwinism, by being a stronger value to the society than opposing values.

[Aurielius]

Nyx,

I am of two minds on this, it is a valid concept but think that it's true application is more true in primitive societies than modern ones largely due to the built up layers of civilization that would tend to mitigate it's actual implementation. It is always hoped the the better angles of our nature would have the upper hand but experience has taught me that is not necessarily the norm of human behavior. It is the quality of mercy that should defines us but historically some ideologies and societies are tone deaf to that internal whisper.

[DeadMansFist849]

Oh, people believe that all right. Usually, it seems, the same kind of people who believe that we shouldn't do anything about bigotry because "freaks" shouldn't exist in their minds anyway.

 

I have a passionate hatred for eugenecists. They're the kind of people who believe a life like mine has absolutely no value and I need to be "cured" of the things that make me "not-normal" or prohibited from having children (not that I can or want to anyway, but it's the principle of the thing), so...yes, I have a problem with that.

[SilverDNA]

Adding Link: Social Darwinism (Wikipedia)

 

Social Darwinism can be argumentative used to establish a hierarchy as well as to border out and oppress people with easy means.

Fairly common it is used to support any eugenics and is an easy justification in combination with stigmatizing prejudice and discrimination to go against anyone.

Now a days mostly used by such scientists like Peter Singer (Link on Wikipedia) and his thesis's (as a modern day example where the argumentation today goes).

In politics it is commonly used in combination with the argument that financial means are too expensive to support minority's that have already stigmatized by classicism. Most commonly it is used by right wing extremists, but also often used by right parties in elections. ( around the world)

On the left political wing it never mentioned openly, but also used as tool to gather financial resources through lobbyists, while giving the impression to be a left argument it is only used to establish a hierarchy against other minorities. (mostly it can be openly viewed on how different victims of crimes that left wing organisation support only one group of victims and tend to get this influence into governmental papers by buying and faking scientific studies that are later published by scientists so that their names only appear if you ask from whom it this was financed. ( a scientists would never bite the hand that feeds him even if it is unethical and amoral by taking the money and leaving a half done work mostly by using seemingly valid reasons to be fairly inaccurate on the subjects that would expose another group in need of support that isn't on the list of the left wing organisations agenda or even opposite.)

Edited April 5, 2012 by SilverDNA

[BlackRampage]

Definition is here

Decided to read the linked article. Seemed fairly objective, until I got to this line:

Social Darwinism has proven to be a false and dangerous philosophy.

Guess the article isn't very objective at all. A bit of research revealed why: Link

 

As for social Darwinism itself:

There's obviously a lot of confusion about exactly what social Darwinism is. Regardless, I'd say it's been far too often mis-attributed with and abused by certain movements. Especially when those movements either attempt to tarnish Darwin's evolutionary theory or use it to justify their own racist ideology.

 

I think I'd best leave it at that.

[Deleted472477User]

Definition is here

Decided to read the linked article. Seemed fairly objective, until I got to this line:

Social Darwinism has proven to be a false and dangerous philosophy.

Guess the article isn't very objective at all. A bit of research revealed why: Link

 

As for social Darwinism itself:

There's obviously a lot of confusion about exactly what social Darwinism is. Regardless, I'd say it's been far too often mis-attributed with and abused by certain movements. Especially when those movements either attempt to tarnish Darwin's evolutionary theory or use it to justify their own racist ideology.

 

I think I'd best leave it at that.

 

 

My own definition, the link aside, is that there are people who believe "Screw you if you can't take care of yourself. If you're poor, get un-poor or die. You are weak, so die and make room for more of the strong." To me, mentality is a convenient excuse to not have to help anyone else, ever, for any reason.

 

In my own opinion, I think there's some political candidates who believe this way, but know it would cost them votes, so they couch it in nicer terms. I'm going to stop there, though.

[Georgiegril]

Mozart, arguably the most gifted composer of all time, died in poverty and left no surviving offspring. From a social Darwinism perspective, then, he was a failure. The Dalai Lama lost everything, including his country and likewise will leave no genetic mark on our future. Another failure?

 

When I look at those with wealth and power, I do not see the pinnacle of human achievement. I see those who value wealth and power above all, and usually, came from a family that had amassed these things as well. Social Darwinism's flaw is that it requires us to buy into the paradigm that "success" equals wealth, power, and progeny.

[Aurielius]

Mozart, arguably the most gifted composer of all time, died in poverty and left no surviving offspring. From a social Darwinism perspective, then, he was a failure. The Dalai Lama lost everything, including his country and likewise will leave no genetic mark on our future. Another failure?

 

When I look at those with wealth and power, I do not see the pinnacle of human achievement. I see those who value wealth and power above all, and usually, came from a family that had amassed these things as well. Social Darwinism's flaw is that it requires us to buy into the paradigm that "success" equals wealth, power, and progeny.

Why would wealth and power be part of the equation? Progeny yes, lack of self destructive behaviorism yes but that is where I think it ends.

[Nintii]

 

My own definition ... is that there are people who believe "Screw you if you can't take care of yourself. If you're poor, get un-poor or die. You are weak, so die and make room for more of the strong." To me, mentality is a convenient excuse to not have to help anyone else, ever, for any reason.

 

 

People who would disagree with this would state that "everyone is born on an equal footing with equal opportunity therefore your life is what YOU make it".

At first this seems to sound fair but the reality of it is that that type of a philosophy also tends to make you look out for number one - meaning you - at the expense of having a social responsibility.

The problem is that due to no fault of their own many people are born into disfunctional families, or communities etc., which means that the "equal footing" with others isn't equal anymore.

 

And no, it's not your problem, it's theirs but that throws out the baby with the bath water ... neither one is your problem ... where does

that leave social responsibility ?

 

It is here that we need to at very minimum have a social conscience and see to it that the basics that would at least cover people's health, protection and education are in place.

It has been a bit of a transition for me to accept this kind of philosophy as I am extremely anti-socialist ... but I think as long as we protect our fellow humans at this basic fundamental

level, we have at least shown an indication of social responsibilty.

 

 

 

Though I would not support Barack Obama, it is abundantly clear to me why he does what he does, he has a social conscience.

I see a war for the American social conscience being waged ... if the gap between the have's and have not's continues to grow, it is as clear as daylight to me that things like

foreign policy etc etc., will mean less and less to people and the "majority" being the have not's will vote into power politicians who will take care of them ... it is here that people

need to be careful.

Preferrably it would be in the "have's" best interests to lead the nation to a peaceful socialistic outcome than be steam-rolled into a place where you had no say at all as to the

laws or social policies that would manifest by the angry "have not's".

 

 

 

Social Darwinism to me means special rules for certain social classes or individuals where privilege through financial strength or fame turns people into "untouchables".

If I committed the crime it would be ten years but because it's so and so, well he or she is only getting a slap on the wrist.

Social Darwinism is also where certain groups like races or religious groups are either kept down or unfairly promoted.

Eugenics ... well that's social racism with an ice-pick

Edited April 5, 2012 by Nintii