Are "positivists" and "social Darwinists" actually anti-evolution?

Question

Both philosophies consider individuals or ethnic/racial groups in an isolated fashion, "floating in mid-air" without connection to society at large.

We are a social species, and have evolved using cooperation to survive. We run in groups and the group relation must be considered in any evaluation. We have to be TAUGHT to be selfish, either through learning about shortages through life experience, or through philosophies that encourage "self above all" thinking, either directly like "selfishness is good" or indirectly like "My personal relationship with God is what counts."

Babies seem to naturally prefer people they see as helping others. Check out this link. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

So in spite of their discussions of evolution or their names, are philosophies like Ayn Rand's "positivism" or "social Darwinism" actually ANTI-evolution?

Do these philosophies, along with religion and capitalism, go against natural human inclinations?

Absolutely correct, Christopher, about "positivism" and "Objectivism." My error. I was arguing a different matter with a positivist and merged the two discussions in my mind. My mistake.

Posthuman, I disagree.

I believe that you are incorrect about capitalism and commerce being the same thing. Communalist, feudalist, so-called "barbarian" societies, capitalist, and socialist societies ALL engage in commerce.

Capitalism is NOT just a "free exchange" of goods and services. There is an entire structure behind it, a structure that rewards certain kinds of behaviors that are not compatible with survival of the species as a whole.

For one thing, monopolies seem to come up fairly frequently in capitalism. How is that a "free" exchange, when it is a good or service you MUST have, and you live in a society with a division of labor, and there is only ONE source, or even multiple sources that all share objectionable characteristics?

That is not a "free" exchange - it's more like extortion.

Religion WAS an advance in it's time -- an attempt at a rational thought process.

However, in a modern social matrix, with a more advanced form of rational thought available (scientific method) this outmoded form leads to decisions that are counter-survival.

Perhaps I should have stated that my goal is a direction to the evolutionary process that is PRO-survival of my species - I recognize that evolution has no "good/bad" value and could lead to my species' extinction.

Forgive my prejudice in favor of human survival.

Even though I disagree with some of what is being written, I want to thank you all for the thoughtful answers, absent of vitriol.

Answer 1

great question as you mentioned we are a social being. we learn individualism from our societies. naturally the law of survival of fetus applies to human being however one can argue that since we are a social being, our survival depends on the well being of our societies . in a capitalist society we are programed to be individualistic IE; we are programed by different types of games and/or sports to win and it becomes so important that one will use any means in order to win. there are still some societies in Africa that in order for one to "win" he or she must try to equalize and/or has to even with the opponent! as a result there isn't much violence in these societies either! our technology is evolving faster than us and since it is evolving because of military incentives while social Darwinism and individualism is the prevailing ideology then it very well may be a cause for our distinction. this type of selfish attitudes not only harms the society but also our nature and in long run as we destroy other species we are digging our own grave. but who cares it wouldn't happen in my life time! if you know what i mean! peace

Answer 2

I have to disagree with some of your starting premises. For starters, that selfishness must be taught. What is selfishness, but acting in our own best interest? THAT is completely natural. Perhaps you meant acting in our own best interest, at the expense of others? Humans are a diverse species, and the amount of compassion each of us varies widely. So I would not say that that definition of selfish is unnatural either.

I heard about the baby study you linked to. However, their reactions could also be interpreted as either a safety reflex--the "mean" shapes could be dangerous--or as an act of selfishness--the "good" shapes could be viewed as an asset.

Humans are social animals, but social does not equal communal. The concepts of "mine" and "yours"--i.e. of property--are also a natural part of our evolution. We evolved, and are largely still in, an environment of scarce (finite) resources, so the concept of property is vital for both our social structure and economic transactions.

I don't really see how positivism (did you mean objectivism?), social Darwinism, religion (to a degree), or capitalism go against human nature or are somehow anti-evolution. Evolution itself does not have any goal, such as increased or decreased diversity.

Although I am atheist, I will concede that religion was probably a natural part of our evolution. In addition to explaining many aspects of our world before we had science or rational thought, it did and still does fill several social niches such as enforcing morality, strengthening social bonds, and encouraging (at least in theory) selflessness. Hopefully our species will mature enough so that we no longer need religion, but it will probably be with us for a few more centuries at least.

Regarding capitalism, that depends on your definition of it. It's been my experience that a lot of leftists & anti-capitalists have a dogmatic and largely inaccurate view of capitalism very similar to the dogmatic and inaccurate view many creationists have of evolution. But at its core, capitalism is simply the free exchange of one thing (money, labor, a good, or a service) for another, unhindered, unprohibited and voluntarily. It is, in a word, commerce. All the regulations, redistributions, interference, and other market distortions caused in one fashion or another by gov't are not a part of capitalism, and in fact are largely antithetical to it.

What goes against natural human inclinations is whenever you have some 3rd party entity such as gov't, the mafia or a ruling church which, through its actions (including rules, laws & behavior) interferes with, discourages or prohibits what people would otherwise be doing naturally. In that sense I think only religion would fit that description, and even then it would depend on the specific church.

Answer 3

No, I think you are incorrect. The natural human inclination is to protect the family first. Then the tribe and then a more universal group. The group mentality of which you speak, is again tribal limited. The groups found good places to live and then fought to keep them. They did not want to share. If I create a better way to do something, fine, it may help everyone, but it is mine.
Lastly, our selfishness is a direct result of evolution. We protected our water source and because of it, we thrived. We learned. We traded.

Answer 4

Many of the things that we do socially may seem to go against our basic instincts but then again look at the animal kingdom.

Primates have social systems that may or may not function as a part of another system that a species has developed to handle various situations.

I would say that any system that requires formal rules other than the rules/systems/functions of natural instinct will eventually go against their original "inclinations."

Answer 5

Ayn Rand wasn't a positivist. She referred to her own views as "Objectivism."

In the history of philosophy, the term "positivism" usually refers to a school that philosophizes in the spirit of Auguste Comte, the early Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Karl Popper.

Whether or why your critique of what you take to be positivism applies to them, I can't say.

Answer 6

why must every philosophical idea or ideal,., be part of a trend that was an idea that had all its parts,. it sounds like poeple are trying to build a socialsystem to mee