It just isn't worth 15...
Published on May 10, 2010 By Audiafox In Ethics

   I've recently been wondering what is going through the minds of US society today.  On one hand, 90% or more of the US population believes that evolution and abiogenesis was responsible for how human life came about, and believes that survival of the fittest is optimal for evolutionary progess.

   Yet on the other hand, we have left liberal left, backed by a majority of the US, which wants to save the little guy from a lot of heartache, when 90% of the time the little guy is backed into a corner of his or her own creation.  The housing market collapse, for example.  The government bailed out a large number of people who, in all honesty, deserved to reap the consequences of their poor actions.  I don't have much sympathy for people who buy a $300,000 home when they're living paycheck to paycheck on $50,000 a year.

   Doesn't it seem off to you that people are willing to pass laws and bills like Universal Health Care and the Stimulus Bill to help those who are "in need," yet at the same time claim to believe in the survival of the fittest?  These bills are made to help that poor little guy out of his corner, when survival of the fittest declares that they should be left in that corner to die.

   The same thing applies to the whole debate about euthanasia and/or pulling the plug on comatose and vegetable patients.  Survival of the fittest would say that those people should be allowed to die, if not actively helped along.  I can't say I like Dr. Kevorkian, but at least he was consistent.

   Then there is the whole idea of keeping up the self-esteem of children in public schools.  You pat them on the back and tell them what a great job they're doing, as long as they appear to give an effort.  Survival of the fittest doesn't care a fig for the effort you put into something if the result is bad.  Survival of the fittest doesn't care about how you feel about yourself, and it certainly wouldn't care if you decided to slit your wrists.

   In the same way, as a society the US tries to help the poor by giving out minimum wage laws, food stamps, health care, unemployment centers, and what have you.  They want to trade capitalism, the epitome of survival of the fittest mentality, for socialism which makes all equal.

   Why are people obsessed with everything being fair for all?  Doesn't their own belief system call for inequality for the betterment of humanity?  Do they not want a world in which the strong and smart survive to pass on their wisdom, while the poor, weak, and old pass on and remove their strain from the system?

 

   It is my conviction that even those who believe in evolution don't truly believe everything that it stands for, or don't want to follow everything that it would entail.

   Am I alone in this line of thought?


Comments
on May 10, 2010

Before any discussion gets underway, please note that this is NOT a creation vs. evolution debate.
In fact, for the discussion I'd appreciate it if you would assume evolution is true.

on May 10, 2010

The same thing applies to the whole debate about euthanasia and/or pulling the plug on comatose and vegetable patients. Survival of the fittest would say that those people should be allowed to die, if not actively helped along. I can't say I like Dr. Kevorkian, but at least he was consistent.

Actually, Kevorkian was not about euthanasia, but of self determination - the right for those who felt the need to determine their own fate.  But I got a chuckle out of your statement he was consistent.  I never thought of it that way, but yes he is.

But the driving force behind the American people is not nature (Darwin), but of nurture.  They seek to help those that are not capable for providing for themselves.  The contentionism comes in how.  Conservatives take the nurturing attitude, where you raise them and teach them to be self sufficient.  Liberals take the smothering love attitude where they want to make things easy for them.  Fair is subjective.  Everyone (almost) is for fairness, the differences comes from what it entails.

on May 10, 2010

Perhaps, but the fact remains that they want things to be fair; isn't "fair" a concept which is specifically destroyed by natural selection?

I guess the answer, then, would be that people believe in evolution for the past, but seek to move away from it for the future?

on May 11, 2010

Audiafox
Perhaps, but the fact remains that they want things to be fair; isn't "fair" a concept which is specifically destroyed by natural selection?

I guess the answer, then, would be that people believe in evolution for the past, but seek to move away from it for the future?

Fair is a purely subjective concept.  Unlike "truth", fair is in the eye of the beholder.  And yes, nature is not about subjective things, but objective things. So fair is not in nature.  But man (through religion or conscious, or some force in the universe) has this never ending quest to make all things "fair".  It will never happen, but that does not stop him from doing it. 

And it cannot happen.  Because what is "fair" to me is not "fair' to you.  We both know what is legal, and probably can agree on what is good and evil.  But fair?  Probably not.

And the fairness really has nothing to do with evolution.  Evolution is like a river.  it does not care if you are a good person or a bad person, you drown just the same.  And it just continues flowing, never caring.

on May 11, 2010

True, evolution does not care.  However, if people really believed that evolution was responsible for all the progress we've made as a species, wouldn't they do their best not to care as well?

on May 11, 2010

wouldn't they do their best not to care as well?

No.  I think that is one of the primary differences between man and animal.  Our caring is an outward manifestation of our humanity.  Animals do not care.  They are trained, react on instinct, or perish.

Meta
Views
» 144
Comments
» 6
Category
Sponsored Links