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

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:56:01 +0000 (UTC), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ambrose
searle) wrote:

>> > All of the insults, ad hominems, bashing, piling-on, etc., is really
>> > imbecilic. I think those who really care about the issues at hand look
>> > right past it.
>> 
>> Actually, it is *you* who is being imbecilic. All you do is put
>> forth ad hominem attacks on Darwin, claiming that his personal beliefs
>> would somehow invalidate his theory of evolution.
>
>My "attacks" have been on the ideas expressed in Darwin's DESCENT OF
>MAN. 

You have been attacking cardboard versions of those ideas, often based on a
superficial reading of Darwin.

>I have nothing against Darwin as a man, and would never,
>therefore, make an ad hominem attack on him. I have to concede that I
>don't even know for sure what Darwin's "personal beliefs" were, I only
>know what he wrote in his scientific works.
>
>My recollection from reading is that Darwin was quite a fine person, a
>gentleman, a charitable, generous, and kind person. I think I even
>read that his "personal beliefs" were rather pro-Christian. But this
>is irrelevant to this discussion. My concern is with his doctrine of
>social evolution, which, in my view is wrong, dangerous, and at the
>root of much of what is wrong with the world.

Now it is "social evolution"?  I don't suppose you know that term is not
identical to "social Darwinism", do you?  Want to try and blame Darwin for
"sociobiology" too?

>
>In Descent of Man, Darwin articulated a theory of the evolution of
>societies that resulted in one society being superior to another.

No, Darwin articulated (as only *one* part of his argument in _Descent of
Man_) an *assumption* that European societies were superior to others based
on the superior capabilities of Europeans (his real racism) and sought to
explain how it came about.  There was much more to _Descent of Man_ than
just that.  

If Darwin had been a perfect human being, he would have applied his
biological theory to societies in the same way as he did to organisms,
without value judgments as to which was "higher" or "lower", and simply
asked why, when in competition, one society has differential success over
another.  

The reasons for his failing to do this were complex and went beyond his
cultural bias.  Put on such a basis, however, much of what he said about
the factors that determine the outcome was true, as was the prediction that
Western culture would destroy (or co-opt, which is the same thing) many
other cultures.  In short, the idea that societies compete in analogous
ways to competition among organisms is *not* obviously false.  And the
prediction was not self-fulfilling (or, at the very least, you have not
established that it was).  That some societies have outcompeted others (and
been outcompeted, in turn, by yet others) over the course of history is
obviously true.  The prediction that European societies in the late 19th
Century would do it to weaker societies was obvious and was not the *cause*
of it happening. 

>
>This is known as Social Darwinism:

No, it isn't.  Not least of all because there *is* no one thing known as
"social Darwinism", as Robert Young, the expert *you* cited, said.

>
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=social%20darwinism
>http://www.webref.org/sociology/s/social_darwinism.htm
>http://www.bartleby.com/59/17/socialdarwin.html
>http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=404290

These are dictionaries of common usage and are not accurate in matters of
scientific, philosophical or historical terminology.  They are not even
consistent with each other.  

(Also note that "social Darwinism", according to at least 3 of the
definitions and arguably all 4, is not inherently racist and, contrary to
your assertion, does not hold value judgments as to which societies are
"higher" or "lower".  If these definitions are to be believed, "social
Darwinism" merely held that the 'fittest' societies, by *some* standard,
would *survive*.  That an uncontrovertible fact.) 

>
>No "ad hominem" is in this attack. I simply think Social Darwinism is
>a dangerous theory.

Given that it is a term of abuse, used only to describe what the speaker
abhors, that is trivally true. 

---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

Education is what remains after one has 
forgotten everything he learned in school.

                               - Albert Einstein -