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

"ambrose searle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 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.
>
> Please cite Darwin where he says his terminology is not based on his
> science but on his culture.

Not the terminology, the *value judgement* of criteria for superiority
(evaluation of superiority based on morals).
Why closeness to a certain culture moral values rather than running speed,
for example?
Or intellect, for that matter?

Why for example, it was evil (no arguments based on natural selection for
why
it was evil) to not let the weak fend for themselves, whereas that would be
something
savages (and so-called Social Darwinists) would do.

> I have cited him using these terms in clear "scientific" discourse.
>
> > His evaluation of the *intellectual* capacity of
> > people in other races is that they were EQUAL.
>
> Citation please.

Pg. 226 Descent of Man "and as far as we are able to judge,
although liable to err on this head, none of the differences between
the races are of any direct or special service to him."

So, do you think Darwin did not feel difference in intellect would be of
any special service to man?  Is this kind of thing a
racist would use to justify superiority of whites over blacks?

> > Kind of misleading to pin the label Social Darwinism on that,
> > when the usual association is to the quite opposite conclusion.
>
> Show me the cite in Darwin.

The above and the calling of the casual dismissal of the plight of
the poor as evil.  Do I need to repeat that again, also?

> > > > Darwin was unequivocal in stating that intelligence is a naturally
> > > > selected trait, and that it is also passed to offspring:
> >
> > DUH!
> >
> > That does not address Huck's argument.  If Social Darwinism is
> > *application* of Darwinism to explain (or recommend) increased success
in
> > *biological* terms, then doing so in terms of culture is NOT.
>
> Darwin believed that some human groups were more intelligent than
> another based on the environmental conditions that selected for higher
> intelligence (viz., a cooler climate).

Wrong.  Darwin explicitly stated the cause was not clear, but that there
was a correlation between climate and civilization (which is true).

"Progress seems to depend on many concurrent
favourable conditions, far too complex to be followed out. But it
has often been remarked, that a cool climate, from leading to industry
and to the various arts, has been highly favourable thereto. "

Far too complex to be followed out = selected based on intelligence?

> > > Intelligence is standardly regarded as having a genetic component so
> > > it would be subject to natural selection in any environment in which
> > > it provided a reproductive advantage (or disadvantage for that
> > > matter). Does believing this make you a social Darwinist?
> >
> > Perhaps he will ignore this question also.
>
> I responded to it directly in another post.

Sorry, I can't see the other post right now.

> > > > And here we have Darwin's writings which are as racist as the Bible
is
> > > > unscientific, and what do Darwin's "believers" do: they do
everything
> > > > they can to extricate their savior from aspersions.
> >
> > Are you equating racism with Social Darwinism?
>
> Nope. Racism existed long before Darwin. Darwin & friends simply
> provided what they believed was a "scientific" justification for
> racism.

Cite for where Darwin believed natural selection *justified* anything,
rather than just *was*.  If anything, Darwin explicitly stated that
civilization checked the forces of natural selection, and Darwin was
not about to badmouth civilization.

> In a world where most everything that young children are taught is
> supposed to be grounded in science, this doctrine is dangerous.

People don't teach science from 140 year-old texts.
Now that we know something about genetics, we know that
natural selection really *can't* be applied in the way
Social Darwinists tried (or artificial selection in the way
eugenics tried).  So how can natural selection be a dangerous doctrine?
Isn't it all the more important to understand evolutionary biology
rather than let some caricature be circulated?

> > > > In the end it just goes to show that Darwinists aren't objective,
> > > > scientific, academics, but rather ideologues with a religious zeal
for
> > > > their faith in evolution.
> >
> > You obviously don't know that Social Darwinism has nothing to do with
> > biological evolution (including Darwin's theory of natural selection).
>
> Poppycock.
>
> "There is apparently much truth in the belief that the wonderful
> progress of the United States, as well as the character of the people,
> are the results of NATURAL SELECTION; for the more energetic,
> restless, and courageous men from all parts of Europe have emigrated
> during the last ten or twelve generations to that great country, and
> have there succeeded best"

*Is* that *biological* evolution (Darwinism)?  NO.  Quite simple, actually.
My statement is about the present, about *my* motivation.

The problem for Darwin is that in the absence of what we know today
(and so much of what was known back then about "savages" was garbage),
he could not tell what aspects of man had a biological basis, and to
what extent.  I am not the kind of idiot who denigrates a great
man for not knowing what I know.  That is really all the motivation
for defending him from a label that has pejorative meanings that most
definitely do not apply.  Once you eliminate the parts where
further understanding invalidates particular sections, what remains is
really
quite good for the time it was written.

[snip]

Tracy P. Hamilton