Social Darwinism

[myrmaad]

BlackRampage, you don't seem very objective in your assessment of that link, yourself. It has nothing to do with the validity of the site's claim that Social Darwinism is a failure.

 

Objective scientists agree that Social Darwinism failed, almost laughably so. It was discredited along with phrenology and scientific racism.

 

The term used by the President has more akin to Richard Hofstadter than Herbert Spencer.

 

For more, see various articles like this one to explain what President Obama meant:

I happen to think "social Darwinist" captures the prevailing Republican philosophy pretty well. The point of the label, created by historian Richard Hoftsadter, is that a species of laissez-faire economics treated the market the way Darwinians treat natural selection — as the sole natural and correct mechanism for distributing rewards. You do not have to venture into the Republican fever swamps to find evidence of this belief. Greg Mankiw, an economist, adviser to Mitt Romney, and relative moderate within the party, has written:

 

People should get what they deserve. A person who contributes more to society deserves a higher income that reflects those greater contributions. Society permits him that higher income not just to incentivize him, as it does according to utilitarian theory, but because that income is rightfully his.

 

Now, I suspect that right-wingers object to the term "social Darwinist" because it can be understood to imply a more literal application of Darwinism — that the poor should be killed off so they cannot reproduce. Almost none of them would take the theory quite so far. But the more symbolic application of Darwinism to the market, as a morally optimal tool for allocating rewards, seems appropriate. Republicans may prefer a more positive-sounding label, but in politics you don't always get to pick your label.

[Georgiegril]

BlackRampage, you don't seem very objective in your assessment of that link, yourself. It has nothing to do with the validity of the site's claim that Social Darwinism is a failure.

 

Objective scientists agree that Social Darwinism failed, almost laughably so. It was discredited along with phrenology and scientific racism.

 

The term used by the President has more akin to Richard Hofstadter than Herbert Spencer.

 

For more, see various articles like this one to explain what President Obama meant:

I happen to think "social Darwinist" captures the prevailing Republican philosophy pretty well. The point of the label, created by historian Richard Hoftsadter, is that a species of laissez-faire economics treated the market the way Darwinians treat natural selection — as the sole natural and correct mechanism for distributing rewards. You do not have to venture into the Republican fever swamps to find evidence of this belief. Greg Mankiw, an economist, adviser to Mitt Romney, and relative moderate within the party, has written:

 

People should get what they deserve. A person who contributes more to society deserves a higher income that reflects those greater contributions. Society permits him that higher income not just to incentivize him, as it does according to utilitarian theory, but because that income is rightfully his.

 

Now, I suspect that right-wingers object to the term "social Darwinist" because it can be understood to imply a more literal application of Darwinism — that the poor should be killed off so they cannot reproduce. Almost none of them would take the theory quite so far. But the more symbolic application of Darwinism to the market, as a morally optimal tool for allocating rewards, seems appropriate. Republicans may prefer a more positive-sounding label, but in politics you don't always get to pick your label.

 

I therefore look forward to Congress passing legislation that triples the salaries of teachers and cuts their own income entirely.

[SimpleGlitch]

At this point I feel helplessly confused :unsure:

 

I thought it talked about Ideas in general, and how good idea spread through out a society and how bad ones die out. I didn't think that it refereed to people or how to treat others based on what they contribute.

 

Can someone in there own words describe to me objectively describe to me what it is...

[Aurielius]

BlackRampage, you don't seem very objective in your assessment of that link, yourself. It has nothing to do with the validity of the site's claim that Social Darwinism is a failure.

 

Objective scientists agree that Social Darwinism failed, almost laughably so. It was discredited along with phrenology and scientific racism.

 

The term used by the President has more akin to Richard Hofstadter than Herbert Spencer.

 

For more, see various articles like this one to explain what President Obama meant:

I happen to think "social Darwinist" captures the prevailing Republican philosophy pretty well. The point of the label, created by historian Richard Hoftsadter, is that a species of laissez-faire economics treated the market the way Darwinians treat natural selection — as the sole natural and correct mechanism for distributing rewards. You do not have to venture into the Republican fever swamps to find evidence of this belief. Greg Mankiw, an economist, adviser to Mitt Romney, and relative moderate within the party, has written:

 

People should get what they deserve. A person who contributes more to society deserves a higher income that reflects those greater contributions. Society permits him that higher income not just to incentivize him, as it does according to utilitarian theory, but because that income is rightfully his.

 

Now, I suspect that right-wingers object to the term "social Darwinist" because it can be understood to imply a more literal application of Darwinism — that the poor should be killed off so they cannot reproduce. Almost none of them would take the theory quite so far. But the more symbolic application of Darwinism to the market, as a morally optimal tool for allocating rewards, seems appropriate. Republicans may prefer a more positive-sounding label, but in politics you don't always get to pick your label.

Thanks Myr, you preempted one of my droll counter retorts in defense of conservative values systems . :thumbsup:

[Ghogiel]

"A person who contributes more to society deserves a higher income that reflects those greater contributions."

 

That needs to be clarified. Can we quantify contributions and their value?

Edited April 6, 2012 by Ghogiel

[SilverDNA]

"A person who contributes more to society deserves a higher income that reflects those greater contributions."

 

That needs to be clarified. Can we quantify contributions and their value?

 

It might be easier to ask what can be ruled out on philosophical, moral and ethical points on the different streams of Social Darwinism in particular.

Might be we see a clearer picture of social Darwinism by this method instead of poking blind folded in it with a stick.

 

[Ghogiel]

Everyone has an equal opportunity to even contribute> lol. There's even more bias beyond nepotism and it's not what you know it's who you know.

[darkofan]

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.

 

social darwinism failed in those areas you named because it didn't exist. The government had too many controls and people were uncapable of leaving their classes. When you look at Mozart he could not perform his music unless it was deemed appropriate by the emporer. He was not alloud to leave the service of whichever leadership figure claimed him, he was by definition a slave, there was no social darwinism because in its place was government (and Mozart did have two sons). And in the case of the Dalai Lama, seriously, look at Asia, almost none of it is free market and the Dalai Lama does not produce a service for which paymrnt is due anyway, the only way for social darwinism to work is for government to not interfere with buisiness. The wealthy that you look at and don't see achievment in, are those that exploit the controls that government put in place. If you're a communist or a socialist ask yourself, are you entitled to someone elses work?