Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Sure, but is a bad basis for morals. Like I said - social Darwinism is dodgy at best.
Evolutionary biology is definitely no basis for a system of morality. But I must say, as a biologist who studied evolution, that social Darwinism is not based either on evolutionary theory or empirical evidence. The idea that evolution is driven solely by competitive ability is pseudoscience, and works neither in human nor animal populations.
I wrote it further down, ist based on very basic understanding of evolution (happen to have studied biology myself) and sure, like any other moral system it's not based on any empirical evidence.
Oh agreed! 100%!! Evolution has no morality baked into it just efficaciousness.
So using evolution to reason moral questions is not the best way to go.
It may not be the happiest way to go but I think it's the only self-consistent way to go.
As an individual I totally believe in making the world a better place, do unto others as that you would have them do unto you, all of that. But in the scenario where the world's going to end unless one dude sacrifices themselves, I would say basic instinct kicks in. The tribe must survive!
I hope you just pretend that you don't know what social Darwinism is and how applying it worked out in the end.
I'm aware of it, and I've made no statements along those lines. I think it's disingenuous to conflate my statements of evolution and the question of one sacrifice for the good of the world, to social Darwinism.
Social Darwinism is what you get by applying basic understanding of evolution to moral questions - exactly what you have been doing. It's really not that complicated. As a moral construct it only leads to suffering since it lacks any empathy.
You know Darwin himself was against the idea. He argued that our ability to look after one another was one of the most vital parts of being human and we can't save humanity by giving up our humanity.
How did you manage to interpret my comment in a way that I support social Darwinism?