Libertarianism and Social Darwinism

[Al B. Sure!]

Most historians agree that social Darwinism had been used to justify European colonialism and in United States, Jim Crow laws and use of lynch mobs.

i'm not seeing how Social Darwinists like Carnegie or Rockefeller were overtly racist... nor how they were even classist. they gave huge amounts of money to fostering education for the social darwinist goal of having all have the potential to succeed.

it can not be stressed enough how social darwinism is not laissez-faire capitalism... it conceeds that some people are born into the modern, capitalist-induced situation where, no matter their skill, intelligence, or ingenuity, they will have a tough time succeeding. social darwinism does not work if there is no public education system.

[MrFun]

Read the history of the idea of evolution itself. By 1859, when the first edition of Darwin's book was published, people had already talked about evolution for one hundred years since the middle of the eighteenth century.


What was so Earth-shattering about Darwin's book was not because he introduced an unprecedented theory, but that Darwin's work became out of control. It became out of control when people began applying this biological, scientific theory to human society and it had terrible repercussions for the late nineteenth century on through the first half of the twentieth century in different parts of the world.


You speak of only one way in which some people have butchered and mangled Darwin's scientific theory for their own purposes and then claim that this refutes the other slant that I have already mentioned (justification for repression and persecution of other races).

[Al B. Sure!]

Fun:

this thread was started to discuss the idealogical, intellectual, and philosophical merits/problems with social darwinism and if they are equal to libertarianism.

i have been stating the philosophical and idealogical aspects of social darwinism, as described by those who had intellectual merit (ie- Spencer or even Carnegie)... i dont give a ****, how other, likely stupid and without the intellectual merit of Spencer, people wrongly viewed social darwinism or how they twisted it to other ends. that isn't what we are debating, mrfun...

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by MrFun
Read the history of the idea of evolution itself. By 1859, when the first edition of Darwin's book was published, people had already talked about evolution for one hundred years since the middle of the eighteenth century.


What was so Earth-shattering about Darwin's book was not because he introduced an unprecedented theory, but that Darwin's work became out of control. It became out of control when people began applying this biological, scientific theory to human society and it had terrible repercussions for the late nineteenth century on through the first half of the twentieth century in different parts of the world.


You speak of only one way in which some people have butchered and mangled Darwin's scientific theory for their own purposes and then claim that this refutes the other slant that I have already mentioned (justification for repression and persecution of other races).

Darwin himself was against social Darwinism. He said that was not what he had claimed in his books.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
What was so Earth-shattering about Darwin's book was not because he introduced an unprecedented theory, but that Darwin's work became out of control. It became out of control when people began applying this biological, scientific theory to human society and it had terrible repercussions for the late nineteenth century on through the first half of the twentieth century in different parts of the world.

This is simply not true. What was earth-shattering about Darwin's book was that he assembled, for the first time, so much evidence to support evolution AND he proposed a previously unknown mechanism--Natural Selection. THAT'S what made Darwin's theory so potent. The scientific world, which pre-Darwin had been vastly Creationist in its view, switched to be evolutionist virtually overnight because the evidence he presented was so overwhelming. The entire future of biology came to be shaped by what Darwin discovered. And that's Darwin's true legacy.

Social Darwinism has NOTHING to do with Darwin, it simply took his name to lend some sort of scientific legitimacy to its creed, a creed Darwin himself rejected.

Frankly, I'm not even convinced that there was this Social Darwinism movement you're purporting. I think it was in many ways a bogeyman used to villify opponents. The right-wing still likes to use the term today when debates take place over abortion and assisted suicide.

[Al B. Sure!]

Social darwinism was a natural extension of darwinism though... the historical and general society theories, yes that was a stretch but on the human level, the struggle of survival still applies in the industrial world. Spencer mistakingly thought acquired traits are also passed on but his point was not lost by this. other traits such as increased intelligence are genetically based so Spencer's point that those who succeed should procreate the most is still valid, though not as clearly as he thought.

there was no betrayal of Darwin by Spencer or any of the social darwinists.

[Al B. Sure!]

but natural selection still functions in the industrial world, boris. are you denying this? if you are not denying this, then how is social darwinism anything but a natural extension of darwinism?

[Chemical Ollie]

In Sweden, political science doctorates could loose their funding if they suggest any human behaviour is caused by biology. That's why it's called POLITICAL science instead of simply SCIENCE.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
other traits such as increased intelligence are genetically based so Spencer's point that those who succeed should procreate the most is still valid, though not as clearly as he thought.

What kind of intelligence are you talking about. For example, males entering reproductive years are also often at risk of death. They volunteer for wars, do stupid stunts and stuff like that. Are these people stupid? There certainly isn't any evidence of that. Some people with this personality type are quite smart.

This is a common claim that you are making, but can you explain yourself instead of just saying that smart people are more fit for survival.

[Al B. Sure!]

smart people are NOT necessarily more fit for survival in a natural setting of hunting and gathering. they are more fit for survival in the modern context, however, where mere survival is not the only end of one's traits... rather, success (by whatever standards it is measured as per society [for capitalism, money]), is the end of one's traits.

The social darwinist point is that intelligent people possess a trait which makes them more likely to succeed in achieving our certain value goal. The achieving of this goal is important for human progress, social darwinists assume, and therefore, the trait that allowed for the achievement is more important than traits that do not allow for this achievement. therefore, intelligent people should reproduce more than people who are less intelligent...

the social darwinist view of a proper society is one where those who achieve the value end (money in this case) will have more offspring than their 'poorer' competitors.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Let's keep in mind that "Social Darwinism" has very little to do with actual Darwinian evolutionary theory. There's nothing in biological Darwinism that precludes charity whatsoever. In fact, it's quite possible that altruism is an evolutionary trait designed to help the species.

Altruism as an evolutionary trait would be the best one ever developed if it weren't for the 'freeriders' who abuse this. That's why charity won't work. There will always be people who'll get off with something that was meant to be given to another person!
So basically giving charity will never get the job done to give everybody the best chances of life.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
intelligent people should reproduce more than people who are less intelligent...

Where is your proof that this 'intellegence' is passed on to future generations?

[Al B. Sure!]

kidicious:

Spencer wrongly thought acquired traits were passed on which they are not. whether other traits such as intelligence can be passed on is up for scientific debate but half the scientific community would say intelligence is passed on genetically. we won't know for certain until the genome has been completely mapped.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
kidicious:

Spencer wrongly thought acquired traits were passed on which they are not. whether other traits such as intelligence can be passed on is up for scientific debate but half the scientific community would say intelligence is passed on genetically. we won't know for certain until the genome has been completely mapped.

You're saying that a specific type of intelligence is inhereted. Are you saying that rich people have the greatest intellingence or this type?

[Al B. Sure!]

no... intelligent people have a better chance of becoming rich...