We live in a liberal Western Society with a moral code that dictates the strong should look after the weak - why?
Surely the process of evolution has always been a bout weeding out the weak -
And please, this is hypothetical - I am no Nazi - but your considered opinions would be appreciated.
2006-10-04 23:19:20 · 10 answers · asked by Mr X 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
And please don't ask a question to answer a question - it makes the points hard to understand.
2006-10-04 23:36:00 · update #1
What about, when you get sick or when you grow old and get weak, Should others kill you or leave you or they should take care of you ?
2006-10-04 23:25:18 · answer #1 · answered by dotab 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think I see your dilemma. As a human race, for lack of a better term, all humans are deemed equal as humans. However, it is also supposed that individuals have different skills, therefore everyone is different and no-one is equal. Further more, due to social heirarchies, an individual's status and ranking can differ from others, and quite commonly does.
Perhaps it depends on what characteristic is being measured.
Evolution, I believe, is not so much about weeding out the weak but rather about growing and adapting with the environment in a way that perpetuates life. Although, this may be more along the lines of natural selection... I am more of a creationist anyway.
2006-10-05 07:03:15 · answer #2 · answered by Ozrasta 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We aren't all equal. Which is why assistance for the weak is important. Here is a little story:
Brad Winthorpe grew up in an enviroment of affluence, his family had several country estates, city condiminiums, villas around the world..... He had everything he ever wanted. He was a poor student, he was lazy, and stupid...he became a lawyer.
Tyronne Biggs grew up in an inner city neighborhood, surrounded by violence, never knowing where his next meal will come from, dirt poor, cramped living conditions..... He was an honor student all through high school, he was a responsible young man, he worked when he could... He became a drug dealer
Who is the strongest survivor of the two?
2006-10-05 06:38:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Survival of fittest is a wrong notion or misnorm used by mean and selfish people. Who decides who is fit and unfit. By chance one gets the chance to have information, knowledge and uses it to cheat people and for selfish use is definitely not correct or good.
As human beings all the people are equal. Even any species taken birth has got its own right to live. So have a broad view and everything will be clear. And finally it is the way an individual understands the things.
2006-10-05 07:08:11 · answer #4 · answered by Mr Fact 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is my considered opinion: Come over to my place and I will punch you in the nose and then kick you in the shins and then we will continue this discussion while you are in more discomfort. Then I think you will start to get it.
I don't really want to hurt you or anyone else but its easy to preach 'survival of the fittest' when you're not the one being picked on. Compassion benefits us all and makes our whole species more healthy and 'fit'.
2006-10-05 10:53:44 · answer #5 · answered by megalomaniac 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All human beings are born to have the same rights, it depends on how your take advantage of your rights to succeed. That is the difference, if you study get your Diploma, you are going to get better job opportunities that the one that did not study. There are many chances for everyone it is your choice to take it. Of course there are exceptions, for ex. if you live isolated, or in a place with no opportunities at all, no schools, no family, no relatives, that is really hard, but I know people that could make it even in the worse time.The ideal is taht if we can we can try to help others not take advantage of them.
2006-10-05 07:09:17 · answer #6 · answered by pelancha 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If survival of the fittest actual was the norm amoung humans we would not survive for we would be killing each other off as fast as we could produce offspring. As well as the prisoners that are now in jail would rule and many of the rest of us would be scrambling for cover.
Many cultures support one or the other concept.
2006-10-05 07:01:07 · answer #7 · answered by LostInTheCrowd 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
we ARE all equal, but what we accomplish and do with our lifes is not. And that is what we're judged by since we all always have a choice of whether to succeed or not.... nomatter what circumstances are handed to us at birth. We have the freedom to enhance it or rise above it.
2006-10-05 10:20:31 · answer #8 · answered by mamzellle 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
being equal means everybody should get equal / equivalent oppertunities to develop himself !!! thats it...
'' survival of the fittest '' has ofcourse been matra all our lives and it is inevitable , we just cant change that ...nature ws created for this principle !!!
2006-10-05 06:48:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
because THERE IS NO ONE ELSE OTHER THAN "WE THE PEOPLE" IF ANYTHING DISASTRIC HAPPENS TO ALL OF US AT A TIME.
and so, WE ARE EQUAL and WE SHOULD BE........
2006-10-05 06:39:29 · answer #10 · answered by HAVE A NICE DAY 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋