-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Social Darwinism
- Thread starter Chesterton
- Start date
- Apr 17, 2006
- 6,495
- 4,025
- 48
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- AU-Greens
Bad, because it ignores all the over-all good that comes from cooperation and optimism in social dealings.
Upvote
0
Which idea in particular? Social Darwinism is a term which applies to multiple theories (of the non-scientific kind).
Upvote
0
Elendur
Gamer and mathematician
It, to my eyes, fails to take into account the benefit of groups. A group can lift the individual values above what they could perform alone, which makes the value of an individual hard (-er) to define.
To whittle down "weaker" persons due to one norm would possibly miss the strength they possess in another area, which could surpass that of the ones who would call themselves "stronger".
It's a naive way of thinking (coupled with a few other negative words from me) and it's, to answer your question, bad.
(Going by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism )
To whittle down "weaker" persons due to one norm would possibly miss the strength they possess in another area, which could surpass that of the ones who would call themselves "stronger".
It's a naive way of thinking (coupled with a few other negative words from me) and it's, to answer your question, bad.
(Going by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism )
Upvote
0
DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
- Jan 26, 2014
- 16,757
- 8,532
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
The idea is, for the record, irrelevant in context of biology. It's an idea about public policy. Politics, really.
Social darwinism is a terrible way to organize a society. As others have said, there is value in optimism, cooperation, etc. Society is bigger then the sum of the individuals that make it up.
Upvote
0
lesliedellow
Member
- Sep 20, 2010
- 9,654
- 2,582
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
It is an idiotic attempt to use a scientific theory about what has happened as a basis for social policy and/or morality, regarding what should happen.
Worse than that, it is the basis for every travesty of human rights it is possible to think of, culminating in Nazism.
Worse than that, it is the basis for every travesty of human rights it is possible to think of, culminating in Nazism.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Poll
