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

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

[snip - making a clarification]

> NOTE TO SEARLE: Darwin thought that *moral* faculties had a
> heritable component (we should not say genetic since they had
> no idea of genetics back then).
> 
> Most of Darwin's evaluation of civlized vs. savage was based
> on this.  And no, he did not conclude this based on his theory, 
> but had been raised with the sense of superiority of his culture 
> over "savage" ones.
> 
> His evaluation of the *intellectual* capacity of
> people in other races is that they were EQUAL.

I should qualify this.  Given the vagueness of how Darwin
thought moral character was acquired, certainly the
"savage" within his society would be intellectually inferior.
If one was to place the savage in the upper crust of England, the
potential (what we call intelligence and try to separate
from the effects of training) was certainly not too far short of the
genteel folk.  One needs to read Darwin's impression of "savages"
in just this sort of situation.
 
> Kind of misleading to pin the label Social Darwinism on that,
> when the usual association is to the quite opposite conclusion.
>  
> > that the variations tend to be inherited", and that "the tribes, which
> > included the largest number of men thus endowed, would increase in
> > number and supplant other tribes". But, he also acknowledges the "much
> > higher" significance of the cultural (i.e., non heritable) dimension
> > to these competitions when he says "numbers depend primarily on the
> > means of subsistence, and this depends partly on the physical nature
> > of the country, BUT IN A MUCH HIGHER DEGREE ON THE ARTS WHICH ARE
> > THERE PRACTISED [my emphasis]." He goes on to say that "in Europe the
> > men of the Bronze period were supplanted by a race more powerful, and,
> > judging from their sword-handles, with larger hands; but their success
> > was PROBABLY STILL MORE DUE TO THEIR SUPERIORITY IN THE ARTS [my
> > emphasis again]." So he is entertaining the idea that the different
> > tribes are of different races, but is arguing that the successes of
> > one over another have more to do with cultural (rather than racial)
> > superiority. To this extent he is arguing against social Darwinism. If
> > he was arguing that superiority in the arts either plays no part in
> > competitions between groups or is genetically determined, I'd call him
> > a social Darwinist. If he was arguing that heritable qualities played
> > some part, I'd call him a regular Darwinist.
> 
> and neither did he recommend a course of action based on selection, but
> instead education and inculcation of morality.  Advocating Social
> Darwinism, indeed! 

[snip]

Tracy P. Hamilton