I believe the concept exists. I just don't know what it is.
2006-11-20 04:14:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by Bran McMuffin 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Social Darwinism was an attempt to practice actively what should be left to be Darwinistic. That is, the social darwinists were trying to eliminate poverty and illness by eliminating the poor and the ill. They attacked the people, not the problem.
However, the concept that a person who is not willing to work for a living, and thus is unlikely to find a partner of the opposite gender, and thus unlikely to breed, is not immoral. Saying, however, that such a person may not wed, sterilizing such a person, etc, is morally in error.
Social Darwinism was in moral error because it created causal agents where none were needed, introducing skew and bias into what should have remained, and is now, an entirely impartial system of checks and balances.
2006-11-20 04:17:11
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
To a certain extent yes. But not as strong a concept as evolutionary psychology.
2006-11-20 04:14:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
in many countries, i dont think it applies nowdays,,,, with all our technology and medicines, and the inequality of health care,,, i certainly dont think we have natural selection, if thats what you mean,,,,, and its not even that the most intelligent, as opposed to healthiest, survive,,,,,,,
2006-11-20 04:15:34
·
answer #4
·
answered by dlin333 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am not familiar with this concept. Could you please explain?
2006-11-20 04:14:09
·
answer #5
·
answered by LONGINUS 2
·
0⤊
0⤋