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

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, ambrose searle wrote:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tracy Hamilton) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

 > > > >  > http://human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/paper60h.html
 > > > >  > http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/ls172.htm
 > > > >  > http://www.gennet.org/metro15.htm
 > > > >  > http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0111/opinion/wiker.html
 > > > >  > http://www.toolan.com/hitler/surplus.html#social

> > > >  > But most of all, see
> > > > > http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_05.html

> > > > > 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. ...

> > > 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?

<snip>

You have cited Moore.

"When I say Darwinism is social, I mean it in two senses. First, in
Darwin's own work there was never a clear separation of his biological
research and thinking on the one hand, and its origins in and
extrapolation to social evolution or Social Darwinism on the other. I
don't find that conclusion very interesting, except as a stick with which
to beat positivists and Whigs of the higher orders."  
     --Robert M. Young

I think it is inappropriate to cite Young in support of a claim that
evolution entails repugnant social views, or that Darwin held that it
does, or that evolution is nothing but a disguised expression of such
views.  His point is primarily historiographical.