Ethics or Competence

[xmmcsmielr]

larryroscoe1, you're operating on mythological beliefs .... superstitions, written down hundreds and hundreds of years ago, before scientific knowledge about the world and about life on earth reached its present level of wonderful discoveries. You know that the world really is older than 10,000 years, don't you?

 

[Michigan CG]

Let's not turn this into a religious debate, to each their own views.

 

[xmmcsmielr]

Timothy,

Several days ago larryroscoe1 said, "This kind of thinking totally discounts the presence of deity."

Why did you wait to say, "Let's not turn this into a religious debate, to each their own views." until I said:

"larryroscoe1, you're operating on mythological beliefs .... superstitions, written down hundreds and hundreds of years ago, before scientific knowledge about the world and about life on earth reached its present level of wonderful discoveries. You know that the world really is older than 10,000 years, don't you?"

It is offensive to me that someone would think that discounting the presence of a deity is mistaken. To have a fair and balanced policy, I suggest that a post about "no religious debate" appear right after someone says, "...discounts the presence of deity".

There is no deity ... at least no deity that is subscribed to by the three popular monotheisms of today's societies.

So, when a Forum participant quotes any religious supersition, THAT should result in the thread being shut down, NOT when a response points out the fallacy of the mythology that someone thinks is true.

 

[Michigan CG]

Timothy,

Several days ago larryroscoe1 said, "This kind of thinking totally discounts the presence of deity."

Why did you wait to say, "Let's not turn this into a religious debate, to each their own views." until I said:

"larryroscoe1, you're operating on mythological beliefs .... superstitions, written down hundreds and hundreds of years ago, before scientific knowledge about the world and about life on earth reached its present level of wonderful discoveries. You know that the world really is older than 10,000 years, don't you?"

It is offensive to me that someone would think that discounting the presence of a deity is mistaken. To have a fair and balanced policy, I suggest that a post about "no religious debate" appear right after someone says, "...discounts the presence of deity".

There is no deity ... at least no deity that is subscribed to by the three popular monotheisms of today's societies.

So, when a Forum participant quotes any religious supersition, THAT should result in the thread being shut down, NOT when a response points out the fallacy of the mythology that someone thinks is true.

Mr. Small,

My post --Let's not turn this into a religious debate, to each their own views was a message to you and Mr. Roscoe. Mr. Roscoe posted an opinion, you challenged his opinion. At that point I felt that this thread might turn into a religious or political debate. I respect your opinion as well as Mr. Roscoe's opinion. However, let's stay on the original subject and not divert it into something that is not appraisal related.

No harm, no foul.

 

[Mztk1]

The problem is, these social Darwinists are so cynical, they think that no matter what, people only do the "right" thing because something is in it for them, or because society has pressured them to do so.

Don't confuse social Darwinism with Darwinism or with the scientific theory of evolution. It has little to nothing to do with either. Social Darwinism is built on the back of Herbert Spencer's ideas and Lamarck's Positivisim. It can most readily be seen in today's society amongst the Ayn (pronounced INE by the way for those who say Ann) Rand Objectivism crowd. It coincides with libertarianism, DLC & RNC free market capitilism, and "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" type of belief system - which is exactly what it is, a belief system.

Darwin, on the other hand, postulated in "The Descent of Man" that we have evolved social instincts where we have behaviors that have been selected at a group level due to the survival of the groups who incorporated them. Sympathy, empathy, etc. Doctors help the sick and the lame and used to do it for next to nothing and often free (before the for-profit health care industry and for-profit hospitals took over). It wasn't ever about "Only the strong survive" for Darwin. "Survival", according to his theory, is a matter of 'fitting in to a niche', which is really a social niche for herd animals. Symbiotic organisms do the same thing between species (like humans and dogs). Science in the past 10 years or so has been finding his ideas on social evolution to be strongly supported by testing and field data. It is not a very well published side of the theory because it can easily be confused with other social movement theories, of which Marxism is the big one that scares people off. But from another perspective it can be seen as very Christian, too, such as turn the other check, or if a man asks for your jacket, give him your shirt too. Social cohesion and harmony is more important then individual ego and ambition and that's why by instinct we have a moral inclination against greed and arrogance and anti-social behaviors.

That's my soapbox. I just wanted to clarify that social Darwinism (at least in the classical sense) should not be confused with science. I will say though that there has been a neo-Social Darwinism movement, calling the new findings in social evolution "Social Darwinism" in a way to save Darwin's name from the past. When thinking of social Darwinism in this new framework, it is a strong and very socially embracing theory - but it leads to lots of confusion. I once told my relative from Ireland that I accept the ideas behind "Social Darwinism" thinking of it in the post 1990s sense, but she, being older than be by about 25 to 30 years, took it to mean the way you describe it, and for several years thereafter she turned a cold shoulder to me thinking I was some type of Conservative, Racist, Heartless, misogynistic Republican (which is the party of old Social-Darwinists and the party left-leaning Europe tends to show little tolerance toward). I think she only realized she took me the wrong way about a year ago or so.