Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ambrose searle) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tracy Hamilton) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ambrose searle) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > Carol Lee Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > On 23 Nov 2003, ambrose searle wrote:

[snip - second time trying to post]
  
> > > > > Again, I reiterate: Darwin promoted SOCIAL DARWINISM. That's the fact.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't think so.
> > > 
> > > It can't get any clearer--
> > > 
> > > "With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those
> > > that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised
> > > men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of
> > > elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the
> > > sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost
> > > skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is
> > > reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a
> > > weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the
> > > weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who
> > > has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this
> > > must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon
> > > a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of
> > > a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any
> > > one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."
> > > 
> > > http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_05.html
> > 
> > Thanks for the reference, which proves you are full of shit.
> > Right after the quoted text (skipping 2 footnotes) is:
> > 
> > "The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly
> > an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally
> > acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered,
> > in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely
> > diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of
> > hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our
> > nature."
> > 
> > In other words we should not engage in what is called Social Darwinism,
> > if what you quoted was Social Darwinism.  It can't get any clearer
> > than that, indeed!
> 
> Where does Darwin state that we "shouldn't" do anything?

Where is Darwin saying we should do something?

I will make an argument though.  Feel free to do the
same.  A victorian gentleman would hardly advocate 
doing something which would deteriorate their noble nature (morality
- that which made them superior to "savages").

Right after (had you bothered to read the chapter) is:
"The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation,
for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if
we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could
only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil."

Crystal clear - it is EVIL to neglect the weak and helpless.  Is
that what you think Social Darwinism was?

> Darwin wasn't stating what we "should" or "shouldn't" do. He was
> stating that there are NOBLE "moral" instincts that evolved from
> natural selection, that include the unfortunate side-effect
> ("incidental") instinct called "sympathy," which cannot be repressed.

Too bad for you Darwin was not saying sympathy was undesirable:

"When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came
into
competition, if (other circumstances being equal) the one tribe
included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful
members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid
and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the
other."

Yea, it sounds like he thinks sympathy is detrimental!  Along with
those other bad qualities, courage and faithfulness!

> But, like Nietzsche and Hitler, Darwin considered it an UNFORTUNATE
> and DEGENERATING instinct:
> 
> "We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the
> process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed,
> and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their
> utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment... It is
> surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to
> the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man
> himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals
> to breed."

Merely a description of side effects.  Darwin's example above is
of the surgeon who has to cause pain to effect a more desirable
cure.
 
> Hitler's project was simply to follow Nietzsche (the atheist) and do
> the best we can to get beyond "morality" (good and evil) and simply
> enhance the process of Darwinian evolution by not giving in to the
> "degenerative" (Darwin's word) instinct of sympathy.
> 
> This is no secret interpretation.
> 
> Just read it.

Done.  Make free use of this chapter in rebuttal.

>http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_05.html
> 
> and
> 
> http://human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/paper60h.html

There are plenty of people to blame social ills on due to
"Social Darwinism".  Darwin was used to *promote* all 
sorts of of ideologies of how things should be.  Laisez-Faire
capitalism and communism - which are contradictory! 

The closest Darwin came to advocating a solution in that chapter is
here:

"With highly civilised nations continued progress depends in a
subordinate degree on natural selection; for such nations do not
supplant and exterminate one another as do savage tribes. Nevertheless
the more intelligent members within the same community will succeed
better in the long run than the inferior, and leave a more numerous
progeny, and this is a form of natural selection. The more efficient
causes of progress seem to consist of a good education during youth
whilst the brain is impressible, and of a high standard of excellence,
inculcated by the ablest and best men, embodied in the laws, customs
and traditions of the nation, and enforced by public opinion. It
should, however, be borne in mind, that the enforcement of public
opinion depends on our appreciation of the approbation and
disapprobation of others; and this appreciation is founded on our
sympathy, which it can hardly be doubted was originally developed
through natural selection as one of the most important elements of the
social instincts.*

Advocacy of education and morality - is that what Social Darwinism
means to you?

Tracy P. Hamilton