Social Darwinism

[LavaDog]

You have yet to respond to the observation of your confusing obedience with morality. Would you do something like kill your child or do genocide on your neighbours or fly a plane into a building if you truly believed Allah wished it?

Yes. I understand from the outside that seems completely batsh!t insane but honestly Im used to following orders that don't make any sense and the only reason you get is it will help in the long run. I still see no reasion for following societys morality. If you tell me do not kill because its not nice I don't feel any need to listen. If you said do not kill because if you do I will kill you as punishment then it would affect me so I would obey. To me thats all there is, obedience or anarchy.

 

[Gator]

Yes. I understand from the outside that seems completely batsh!t insane but honestly Im used to following orders that don't make any sense and the only reason you get is it will help in the long run. I still see no reasion for following societys morality. If you tell me do not kill because its not nice I don't feel any need to listen. If you said do not kill because if you do I will kill you as punishment then it would affect me so I would obey. To me thats all there is, obedience or anarchy.

As an atheist, I believe that there is no supernatural being looking over us. So where does "morality" come from?

For me, I believe we get it from two places, basically our genes and our intellect. First the genes. Genes that survive are the ones who have the best strategy for continuation. For most animals (like us) cooperation is a terrific strategy. What can genes "do" to support cooperative behavior? Well, certain genetic codes that could promote the creature to feel good about cooperating (not killing, stealing, etc.) would promote this. Also it could provide an instinct to do so. Creatures that do not cooperate would be at a disadvantage when up against a cooperative competitor. There are many examples in nature of empathy, self sacrifice, sharing and other behaviors that would I would call, if not morality, the foundations there of.

So some of the more brainer creatures, intelect would also be a foundation. It is a better strategy to cooperate and follow laws in general. It allows you to out compete non-cooperative creatures/societies. We are one of the weakest creatures on earth, but through our cooperation, we have done pretty well (depending on your point of view).

That's what I think anyway.

Thanks.

PS - There's a book called "SuperCooperators: Altruism, Evolution, and Why We Need Each Other to Succeed". I haven't read it, but have read a lot of the research by the author and other related researchers. Might be interesting to check it out.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Yes. I understand from the outside that seems completely batsh!t insane but honestly Im used to following orders that don't make any sense and the only reason you get is it will help in the long run. I still see no reasion for following societys morality. If you tell me do not kill because its not nice I don't feel any need to listen. If you said do not kill because if you do I will kill you as punishment then it would affect me so I would obey. To me thats all there is, obedience or anarchy.

The above is very disturbing to me, and I hope you never lose your faith.

 

[truthseeker63]

This is a very good subject.

 

[Trumble]

I think it has now been suitably settled that the OP is complete drivel (sorry, Ubeyde, but it really is), but I'd like to comment on a couple of points. Firstly,

Hitler believed that his nation of Germans was the most technologically and sociologically advanced race on the planet. And, therefore, should be the Ruling Race

While true, to some extent, the source of this belief actually had little to do with 'social Darwinism'. It was far more the result of historical events in the nineteenth century, and with influential philosophies (pre-dating Darwin) significantly influenced by that history; that of Hegel in particular. In brief, there was a widespead belief in Germany that the German people and nation were going through a continuing process of realizing their individual and national potential and identity after a long period of disunity and outside domination (not least by Napoleon I). Victory in the Franco-Prussian war vastly boosted both material resources available to Germany, as well as feelings of national pride and power and belief that what was now the German Empire was about to become genuine 'world' power, able to compete with Britain in particular. Hitler's views originated far more from a mix of that perception of Germany, and the consequent shock and denial that came from defeat in WW1, than anything to do with 'social Darwinism'. Of course, he also considered other 'races' inferior, but such racism - both towards Jews and Eastern Europeans, and beliefs in racial superiority existed long before Darwin and far beyond Germany.

Now you may ask why war has evolved so? If you look back at the history of War you will see how it has advanced. Before the last few hundred or so years, when war was fought, it was fought out between the armies of two conflicting nations, however, as of the First World War, the harming of innocents on both nations has become commonplace. Instead of fighting the wars on the battlefield- war now involves innocents and those who want nothing to do with fighting, e.g. the disabled, elderly, women, children, etc.

Your thesis is complete nonsense. Why don't you actually "look back at the history of war"?! Caesar, Alexander, Ghengis Khan and a thousand others all made war on civilians. In ancient times it was almost expected that military age males of a conquered city would be killed, and everyone else sold as slaves. The real driver was from increases in technology, and rapid increases in that that took off long before Darwin. The three most significant events were i) the widespread use of gunpowder, ii) the Industrial Revolution and iii) the development of nuclear weapons. All three had far reaching effects on civilians as well as soldiers.

Far from 'as of the First World War', the pattern of 'modern warfare' was already well established by the end of the American Civil War. Sherman's torching of Atlanta, for example, was a deliberate attempt to wage war by terrorizing a civilian population in order to harm national morale (EXACTLY the same reasoning behind the London Blitz, and the later Allied bombing of cities in both Germany and Japan). None had anything to do with 'social Darwinism' and whatever Sherman may have thought of the Confederates, it certainly had nothing to do with them being 'less technologically and sociologically advanced'. WW1 itself was little different from the Napoleonic wars in terms of it's direct effect on civilians. By the time of WW2, aerial bombing had been improved to the extent if formed an effective way to wage war whether armies were in direct contact or not, by attacking military facilities, industrial facilities (war now being industry driven) and civilian morale. And atomic weapons, of course, are completely indiscriminate as to who they happen to kill. Finally, as far as I am aware, the only attempt made to 'extinguish a population', as such, using chemical weapons - apart from the Nazi gas chambers, of course - was actually made by Saddam Hussein. Stalin preferred starvation and bullets. Neither Germany nor the Allies used gas attacks on civilians in WW1, and it was not used at all in the Western theatre in WW2. Both chemical and biological weapons were used to attack civilians on a couple of occasions by the Japanese, but that was as 'terror weapons' and - again - nothing to do with 'social Darwinism'.

 

[LavaDog]

The above is very disturbing to me, and I hope you never lose your faith.

lol I guess you can say religion is good for something now.

 

[LavaDog]

Neither Germany nor the Allies used gas attacks on civilians in WW1, and it was not used at all in the Western theatre in WW2. Both chemical and biological weapons were used to attack civilians on a couple of occasions by the Japanese, but that was as 'terror weapons' and - again - nothing to do with 'social Darwinism'.

Im not trying to nitpick but the army now admits they dropped napalm on german civilians for terror and intimidation after they decided gas would prove ineffective. The japanese had a biological weapon testing center called unit 731 in china that made auschwitz seem like hotel europa. They preformed vivisections on babies raped thounads and handed out anthrax laced candy to the chinese children. They did all of that because they were taught from birth they were superior to the chinese and they deserved no pity. The doctors did not even refer to the chinese as peole, they called them shipments of lumber.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I was hoping we could keep Hitler out of this, but since we're throwing him in, I point out that Hitler's ideology was more inspired by centuries of anti-semitism encouraged by the Christian church, and thus far more by religion than by evolution. Gott Mitt Uns indeed.

 

[Trumble]

Im not trying to nitpick but the army now admits they dropped napalm on german civilians for terror and intimidation after they decided gas would prove ineffective.

I'm happy to take your word for that but, regardless, the motive was not one of 'social Darwinism'.

The japanese had a biological weapon testing center called unit 731 in china that made auschwitz seem like hotel europa. They preformed vivisections on babies raped thounads and handed out anthrax laced candy to the chinese children. They did all of that because they were taught from birth they were superior to the chinese and they deserved no pity. The doctors did not even refer to the chinese as peole, they called them shipments of lumber.

It's somewhat cliched to describe the psychology of different cultures as 'enigmatic' but I do think that here. You are quite correct of course, and in addition to such particular crimes the Japanese killed an estimated 30 million civilians, 23 million of them Chinese, whom they were supposedly 'liberating' from British, Dutch and American colonialism. And yet even the most militant of Japanese would happily acknowledge and respect the vast influence of Chinese culture and tradition on their own over the previous 2,000 years.

 

[Ubeyde]

The reason behind this thread being somewhat vague in its approach is because I expected people to do research of their own. I.e. research into Zionism and what ultra-zionists do, their celebrations etc.

I lol'd at how you say civilians were effected by wars in previous times. May be some where, but not on such a huge huge scale like it is today. Just look at Gaza...

 

[Trumble]

Missed this before,

But with out a god or religion to follow then all that is left is natural selection.

As has already been said not only is natural selection not 'all that is left', it's probably pretty much irrelevant in this context since homo sapiens wiped out the Neanderthals! Of those suggested I think 'mutual self-interest' combined with sufficient intelligence to realize what that was is perfectly sufficient.

It seemed like the perfect version of natural law to me where the masses of the weak are there to be exploited by the strong just as nature intended.

Firstly, absolutely nothing has changed in that respect since the first appearance of belief in the Abrahamic God, through Jesus and Mohammed, to the present day. Peaceful and organized civilizations existed before then, and the strong have exploited the weak both before and since (the latter including the supposed believers). Secondly, in what way do you think nature 'intends' the strong to be exploited by the weak? Outside of our own species the only examples I can think of are perhaps 'dominant' males in social mammals like dogs, lions, or apes. And the situation there is little different from that with humans from a number of political perspectives. Marx for example, who was a notorious atheist, certainly believed that to be true of humans, but his reasons had nothing whatever to do with 'natural selection'.

 

[LavaDog]

As has already been said not only is natural selection not 'all that is left', it's probably pretty much irrelevant in this context since homo sapiens wiped out the Neanderthals! Of those suggested I think 'mutual self-interest' combined with sufficient intelligence to realize what that was is perfectly sufficient.

Well my point with that idea was if there is no god and we should be good for mutual self interest alone then there is no real reason. What if instead of following something like buddisim that says be good I decide to follow nietzsche and try to throw off all compassion and empathy for others.

 

[LavaDog]

I expected people to do research of their own. I.e. research into Zionism and what ultra-zionists do, their celebrations etc

I have noticed even on this site if you mention things about athiests or chritians everything is all good. However, the minute you meniton the words zion or jew whatever point you try to make is now just anti-semitism.

 

[Trumble]

Well my point with that idea was if there is no god and we should be good for mutual self interest alone then there is no real reason. What if instead of following something like buddisim that says be good I decide to follow nietzsche and try to throw off all compassion and empathy for others.

Nietzsche said nothing of the sort that I'm aware of, although I'd be happy to discuss any passages/references you provide. I have most of his books somewhere on the shelf. That's rather beside the point, though; you might equally well have used Ayn Rand as an example. I suppose many philosophers have or had 'followers', but surely the point is that you would only follow them if, after assessing their arguments and those of others, you believed them to be right. If, purely for sake of argument, we accepted Nietzsche did think as you say he did, how many followers would he have had? Enough to really bother the rest of humanity, or a few generally viewed as unpleasant 'nutters' and generally ignored.

There are always people who choose to break the rules, wherever they come from or are supposed to come from. That's why everything from the Qur'an to Mao's 'Little Red Book' acknowledge the need for a justice system. Even if somebody who 'threw off all compassion and empathy for others' refrained from criminal activity, it wouldn't take long until he/she ran out of friends and was ignored by family, and then how long would they choose to remain 'followers' of a philosophy so obviously detrimental to their own self-interest quite apart from any other reasons?

 

[LavaDog]

Nietzsche said nothing of the sort that I'm aware of,

Well the uberman thing was about this kinda. He mentions that emotions like empathy are holding people back from their true potential. But like everything else he wrote it was all over the place. Maybe Rand would have been a better example of justifying being callous towards others.

There are always people who choose to break the rules, wherever they come from or are supposed to come from. That's why everything from the Qur'an to Mao's 'Little Red Book' acknowledge the need for a justice system. Even if somebody who 'threw off all compassion and empathy for others' refrained from criminal activity, it wouldn't take long until he/she ran out of friends and was ignored by family, and then how long would they choose to remain 'followers' of a philosophy so obviously detrimental to their own self-interest quite apart from any other reasons?

Oh man, im running out of examples here but lets say someone has the mindset of GG allen so being hated means nothing to them they might actually even like being hated. They kill someone and they go to court or whatever. If The country they are in have a religion they accept as truth and the court system is based on that then the court can say yes your were wrong and we are right here is your punishment no wiggle rooom is involved. If the laws were based on justice system like Mao's book that is completely secular could he not argue they have to prove that their way of thinking is superior to his and then argue what standard they are using to measure.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Oh man, im running out of examples here but lets say someone has the mindset of GG allen so being hated means nothing to them they might actually even like being hated. They kill someone and they go to court or whatever. If The country they are in have a religion they accept as truth and the court system is based on that then the court can say yes your were wrong and we are right here is your punishment no wiggle rooom is involved. If the laws were based on justice system like Mao's book that is completely secular could he not argue they have to prove that their way of thinking is superior to his and then argue what standard they are using to measure.

I say again, the introduction of a God does not solve your "objective morality" quandry. It just mistakes obedience to power for morality. God's moral law is still his subjective view on morality (or more realistically, that of those claiming to speak for him). You already stated that you would perform atrocity if you believed Allah told you to.

 

[Ubeyde]

I have noticed even on this site if you mention things about athiests or chritians everything is all good. However, the minute you meniton the words zion or jew whatever point you try to make is now just anti-semitism.

You are joking right?? One of my oldest and best friends is Jewish. I have absolutely nothing against Jews or Judaism- most Israelis consider themselves to be Zionist and not Jewish.

If I was against Jews, that would mean that I would go against the Sunnah of Rasoola Sallahu Alayhi wasalam and Allah's commandments. People I do not like and Allah Ta'ala Himself does not like are those who corrupt this world. If you look throughout history there have been people exploiting other people and people using Wars such as the World Wars to exploit, corrupt and manipulate the masses. Don't believe me? Look at who actually funded Hitler, and who, financially benefitted from the Wars...

You think Jews weren't tortured in the wars?? In fact I have every sympathy for those who were.. Those Pious Rabbis amongst them are very very religious and noteworthy, I have no problem with them but as I mentioned earlier, it those who corrupt and manipulate is where problems arise..

Peace.

 

[LavaDog]

You are joking right??

Thats not what I ment. There are threads on here where people say christians are commiting war crimes in the middle east and there is little debate. However even the aid flotilla thread had arguments in it for Isreal. You said you wanted people to research for themselves about the ZIONISTS. This site is just like every where else. You have to be careful how you use the word zionist. If you mention it you are automatically considered anti-semitic. Kinda like how because I said this you thought I hated jews or something. So saying things about social darwinism and puttiing zionist in the topic would completly void your argument.

 

[Ubeyde]

I see your point, but I am on the Jews side here.. What was done to them in the World Wars deserves sympathy.

Whatever lies in wait for me in terms of torment or pleasure Allah has already written for me thousands of years before my birth. You think I am scared of mere creation?

 

[Pygoscelis]

A fair argument can be made that Israel was founded on western holocaust guilt, and Israel does exploit that way more than we should let them get away with. But on the other hand the anti-semitism is pretty obvious and rabid amongst some of their neighbours. Its is a feedback cycle.