Social Darwinism what ia social darwinism?

Answer 1

it's the idea that those who are the strongest in society survive better than the weak. like in regular darwinism, where the strongest and fastest survive in the wild, the richest and most powerful survive the best in society, while the poor and weak get the worst of the worst, ending up homeless, unemployed, alone and disrespected.

Answer 2

Just to clear up some pet peeves:

Herbert Spencer didn't think we should starve or sterilize the poor, or that the rich were more evolutionarily fit. He thought that societies were like organisms and that successful ones tended to survive. Spencer had some weird views, but he's a real victim of bad intellectual history.

Also Moore's 'naturalistic fallacy' has nothing to do with the (very bad) inference from "x is the case" to "x ought to be the case". Instead, it has to do with foundational issues in ethics. When we specify the natural features of things that give them their moral status, have we thereby given an analytic or metaphysical reduction of moral terms and properties? E.g., when we say nothing is good but pleasure, have we thereby defined 'good' as pleasure or identified goodness with being pleasant? Moore says no, and that those who confuse the two projects (doing ethics as opposed to trying to reduce morality to something else) are committing the naturalistic fallacy.

And the 'is-ought' stuff comes from the last paragraph in 3.1.1 of Hume's Treatise. Not Moore.

Answer 3

A pernicious idea of a man called, Herbert Spencer. Darwin wanted nothing to do with the idea. The idea stated that the position of the rich and powerful in society was their proper place, conferred by evolution by natural selection. Because they were rich or powerful, they ought to be in the moral right. G. E. Moore destroyed this doctrine with the development of his naturalistic fallacy. This stated that you can not derive " ought " ( ought to be morally correct ) from " is " ( that you are rich or powerful ). Some still cling to this outmoded fallacy. Just because a thing " is " does right mean that thing is " right ".

PS Hume fan; you are seriously deluded. As I stated was as Spencer believed. G. E. Moore crafted the " naturalistic fallacy "
just to refute Spencer and gave over a substantial part of " Principia Ethica ", just to do that very thing. Hume loving is one thing, but plagiarizing from the dead, is another. You need to stop making it up as you go along.

PPS I see you do not allow e-mail. Allow me to be suspicious, then. This way you avoid blistering refutation.

Answer 4

its kind of like racism in that believing one ace is superior and out live the others

Answer 5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism