If evolution is true, then why do we have civil rights?

Question

If evolution is true and it's all "survival of the fittest" then why do we need to worry about rights at all? Might makes right and everybody else can suck it up.
(this is not what I believe, I'm just throwing it out there)

P.S. I added the "if" to stay P.C. There are people out there with different opinions.

Answer 1

You are thinking about "evolution" on the individual level. With humans our evolution has become more cultural then purely biological, and in our complex cultural systems it becomes necessary to create protection for everyone that is represented within your "families" greater gene pool. In this complex cultural system of democracy, human rights and civil rights become increasingly important in an "evolutionary" sense because in a representative government where majority dictates the general rules... Well, the majority does not always compromise "the fittest" and therefore if the most successful individuals want to maintain their position in this society and not cause a revolution, then they have to concede some civil features to the greater majority. Of course the majority wants to guarantee the reproductive success of their kinship lines, so if human and civil rights can try and implement "minimum" standards of living such that everyone who buys into the cultural system can maintain some reproductive success, then, evolutionarily speaking, the majority rule has done their job admirably and our cultural evolution is a success. That said, legislation for human and civil rights should be more apparent in democratic countries and, as it turns out, this is indeed the case.

On a greater scale remember that when dealing with cultures, evolution is now competing at a level which far exceeds the individual and is now working at the national level or even the ideological level. "Survival of the fittest" is now put to the task, for instance, in conflicts between political structures like Communism versus Democracy or Socialism versus Capitalism. If "democracy" wants to be the fittest model then it not only has to provide a leadership structure and economic success, but has to do so in a just and civil manner that will encourage pride in its citizens and a standard of living that promotes an overall success of the political system. As was seen with the fall of the USSR, this brand of communism was not providing economic nor social stability to the majority of their citizens and the USSR model of communism, consequently disintegrated. Chinese, Korean and Cuban communism are all now very different then the model created in the USSR. The Chinese, for instance, have implemented capitalistic bubbles within their greater structure and incorporated Hong Kong as one such bubble which acts outside of the "rule" of communism and allows business and economic profits to take place with individuals profiting from their success. This is an example of the political structure evolving to suit the competitive environment. Still, the communist system does not provide the same human and civil liberties as some other countries, but to tell you the truth neither does America's system which tends to promote economics and lower taxes. In a cultural sense it becomes a much more complex equation and while the US and China dominate in economic arenas to maintain the supremacies of their political/social systems, the UN annually ranks "The Best" Countries to live in based on economic standing (GDP), education standards, level of education attained, per capita income, living expenses, population density, etc, etc, etc. Consistently the top three Countries, in no particular order because they trade places frequently, are Norway, Canada and Sweden. America and China are not even close to these three in this rating system. That is not to say that the US and China are not competitive in terms of "survival of the fittest" when it comes to political systems, just that human and civil rights are not the be all and end all when it comes to the cultural evolution of political structures as is seen by the continued success of the American system, which does not emphasize human or civil rights as much as others.

Anyways, there are many levels to this question, but the "individual" level is not the primary force when we are talking about our human cultural evolution, which includes the evolution of our human rights and our civil rights within this system. I hope that my analysis makes sense, if I wrote something that you need clarified then please write me.

Answer 2

It's survival of the fittest, not might makes right. Two very different meanings.

If might made right, humans would have been wiped out by predation a long time ago.

The Fittest means the most readily adaptable to new situations and circumstances.

Chances are, the concern over civil rights will someday in the distant future give way to a better system

Answer 3

Wow-that's quite a leap. From evolution to civil rights. It may be survival of the fittest but there's also something about the fit being obliged to help the weaker among us. If we leveled things back to the guy with the biggest stick wins-we would be back in the dark ages. I dont know that much about evolution except for animals evolving to be able to survive in the wild. I'm not a Darwinian but I've seen the pictures of man starting out as covered with hair to eventually walking upright with less hair. I've also heard of the missing link, but I still havent seen definitive evidence that we are related to the ape. More will be revealed, but probably not in my lifetime.

Answer 4

Well, yes that is a potential way to go, and could be the basis of a society. Man has learned over the years that this doesn't allow for the most efficient survival of the species. Your question raises another one: "should physical laws like gravity or evolution determine morals?"

On the other hand, the Bible is not adverse to slavery and and doesn't encourage equal rights for women. This raises the question should morality determine social laws?

Answer 5

You got it. If evolution, then civil rights make no sense. And there is nothing special about being human. Civil rights would seem to be working against evolution.

Answer 6

Evolution IS true (it's a proven fact), but it applies to societies as well as to species. A society that adheres to a sound moral code will survive preferably to one that does not. A code of maintained rights is, on evidence, beneficial to a society; compare the US to the Soviet Union.

Answer 7

Evolution deals with biology, not morality or culture. We are intelligent enough to make our own morality and culture. And if you want to justify racism and other isms with evolution you can, but it isn't a very good justification. because all evolution says is that biologically, we evolved from previous species, but we are all the same species.

Answer 8

One reason no person looks to have stated so a strategies is the commerce-off between potential and dexterity. specific a ninety pound lady chimp has extra arm potential than Arnold Schwartzenegger in his best, yet attempt to get the chimp to throw a spear, or vogue complicated strategies.

Answer 9

Assuming evelution is true then civil rights came about when people felt that they were not getting fairly treated and we had others begin agreeing with them.

Answer 10

Because it it one of the stages of human evolution. The human race has far to go before it is "perfect". Acceptance of all as equal is still far up the evolutionary ladder.