by Boris Johnson » Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:17 pm
Yeah, you see the whole problem with social darwinism is,
1) Does nothing to explain the masses of evidence of mutual cooperation, especially in social animals. which we are. The 'people i know' argument only goes so far. We don't just murder strangers who share the same culture, or even similar cultures as us.
2) Its nihilistic, and thus lacks any sort of justification. Suggesting 'well its how nature what is' is quite frankly wrong, as there is a banally large instance of cases that run against it. Gorillas nursing sick kittens is a personal fave. But once an organism seems to get to a certain level of intelligence it displays moral phenomenon that can't simply be reduced to 'I have similar genes to you' or 'I know you from before'. Yes its perhaps slightly rarer than other phenomenon like people ignoring each other on the tube, but if your going to take the naturalism route in your ethics, you don't get to ignore any phenomenon in your explanation.
Frankly, it sounds more like a rationalisation for something that made you super jaded than some well thought out ethical theory.
- These users thanked the author Boris Johnson for the post (total 2):
- exploited • The Comrade