2006-11-22 01:36:36 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Sociology
the question asked for an opinion of survival of the fittest. Whether or not you think it's morally correct. I haven't asked nature yet, but maybe i should...
2006-11-22 01:46:38 · update #1
say a crook has the intelligence to acquire a gun and shoots down a man to steal his money, and get away with it. (survival of the fittest)
2006-11-22 01:59:00 · update #2
This wasn't a darwinian related question. Just because the idea derived from darwin doesn't mean that the question was in the context of his theories/observations.
Not to mention that the question was categorized in sociology and thus weighted deeply by human behavior.
2006-11-22 06:24:30 · update #3
No. the moral thing would be "the fittest ensuring the survival of the weakest"
2006-11-22 01:40:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You question is seriously flawed by being ill posed. First; " survival of the fittest " is a Wallacean term and Darwin did not care that much for it. It was meant as a counter to " natural selection ", but is clumsy and easily misinterpreted, as you have obviously done. Nature is indifferent, though human morals seem to be part of our evolved history. You question is, in that form, the naturalistic fallacy. You can not derive " ought " from " is " and this fallacy was elucidated and defined by G. E. Moore, in 1903, so you date, ya know.
2006-11-22 18:16:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
4 million years ago, our ancestors aquired 3 separate mutations that gave us the power of language. This enables the weaker members to band together or either kill or drive off the bullies. Our great success at survival came about because of cooperation, not power. The reason we have people who seek power is the bullies that were driven off eventually formed new bands of people.
Morality is relative, to be determined by the group.
2006-11-22 11:02:54 · answer #3 · answered by nursesr4evr 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've always thought survival ... as a health thing. Just beacuse we have a bigger bomb does that mean there should only be Americans left in the world?
2006-11-22 10:04:28 · answer #4 · answered by Rick M 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Best thing I can do to allow you to answer the question yourself would be to refer to some books called "The Darwin Awards"
Its all about that, in a comical sorda way.
Good Luck
2006-11-22 09:44:42 · answer #5 · answered by Brandi 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
well, that's the point of it. man's consensus of good/bad has no practicality in nature.imagine all people being wiped from the earth. there would be no one there to talk about good or bad-it wouldn't exist. it only does bc we are here. darwin's observation was of nature, not of human behavior. you should read thomas hobbes's "Leviathan" its about this issue and how it relates to mankind
2006-11-22 12:58:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes, because you should try to be the fittest, when you wont care about it being morally correct.
2006-11-22 09:54:31 · answer #7 · answered by monica 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nature is neither moral nor immoral.
2006-11-22 09:44:36 · answer #8 · answered by Yo it's Me 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes it is.
2006-11-22 09:45:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is just life!
2006-11-22 09:38:35 · answer #10 · answered by MaryBeth 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋