He thinks natural selection should be the only factor in who lives or who dies. Nothing else should be calling the shots. Essentially he's saying it's in nature's hands (or I guess God's hands, if he wasn't an atheist). Not peoples' responsibility, since they are so fallible.
The problem is that natural selection, in terms of social behavior and moral code, goes out the door once you admit consciousness, which we humans possess. The same idea, I think, betrays social darwinism to its weak logics. We do not live in a state of nature. We accept, by conscious will, civilization and its requirements. Otherwise, I can tell you, there are a helluva lot of folks my "natural selection" would select out of the pool. Some of them on this very board.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. Omgitsfletch you summarised my point to a degree, let me elaborate: I think it's cowardly and unfair for a huge organisation such as the government, with all its practically infinite wealth and power, to capture an individual and put him to death. It's like a man swatting a fly. If someone has committed a crime, it should be up to the victim or vicitim's family to decide/punish the "criminal". An example: If someone killed a close friend or family member of mine, I would not want my government to punish this person; I would not want my government to incarcerate or kill this person; I would want to deal with it. So, it's related to natural selection, if I can sort out the person who committed a crime against myself or my family, that's the stronger organism bettering the weaker. Governments doing this are opposing this idea, they can do what ever they want, so they can practically write history and our future. This is pseudo-nature.
Basically, something along the lines of "you're fucked", which to any sane mind is obviously the case. Other than that, maybe bring along a spade and "prison break 101".
I'd probably say something comforting, like "You shouldn't have raped and murdered that little girl, asshole!" Atheists tend to follow the Kubler-Ross model for handling grief.
Well, first of all, your application of social darwinism to this debate is misapplied, in my opinion. Secondly, "Natural Selection & Social Darwinism" is an oxymoron. "Social darwinism" really is a hodgepodge of malthusian theory, Spencerian theory, and eugenics. These theories are entirely different from Darwin's natural selection in their unit of analysis, their deterministic outlook, and their normative viewpoint - a "perfectly achieved society." None of these things have basis in the darwinian emphases on nature and natural selection. In fact, many of them have been appropriated, in their time, by fascism, nazism, and other falsely utopian movements that would seek some "perfect order" by the interjection of man - "kill off the weaker." Your argument is simply an argument for lawlessness, not natural selection, which is simply, well, wiki says it well: This is all natural selection is - the propensity for a given gene expression to survive long enough into procreative age to be passed on. Your logic and analysis is flawed here, Brum. You'd be better off approaching things from a social contract perspective, in my opinion.
so you would want the victims family to carry out their own form of justice on the alleged culprit, which in most cases would lead to anarchy, with mob-rule, and those accused of crimes hung drawn and quartered before anyone took the time to consider whether they got the right man. the reason governments, and a legal system, have to try criminals, rather than the family or friends, is so that the accused person is able to have a fair trial, in that he/she is supposed innocent until proven guilty. your proposed subjective form of justice would have many innocent people facing a bloodthirsty lynching mob. the judiciary is the 'stronger' organism in that it will objectively weigh up all evidence before reaching a decision, and the family the 'weaker' organism, in that emotions will over-rule such a decision being fairly and objectively reached. you seem seriously misguided in your analysis.
Judetheobscure, you fail to look at it in the long term: You seriously think just because "justice" is placed in the hands of the individual, blood-thirsty mobs would arise? I think you're the misguided one. Think realistically. People would first be so worried they'd become intensely introverted within their own homes and territory. Those who overcome this and cause crime would be obvious and outstanding, therefore I see this being no less valid than our so-called justice system. How many do you think are imprisoned or put to death, innocent? There is no such thing as a fair trial. How absurd is taking 12 random people off the street and putting justice in their hands more correct? They may have their own emotional prejudices with the trial, which instantly nullifies any fairness to the trial. It's common knowledge that if you get a good lawyer, you're going to do better than those without. Anarchism should not be rubbished or feared; it is pure freedom. Most of our troubles are caused by a heavily centralised government, what makes you think centralised justice would be any better? Northpointaiki, I'm well aware of the historic use of twisted Social Darwinism. Please, do not generalise me with those who perverted it to suit their own needs, much like "Communism", but that's a different argument. If you wish to summarise my views as arguing for "lawlessness" that's fine, but note that "law" in itself is an entirely subjective, man-made expression. As for Natural Selection and Social Darwinism, I originally said my argument related to them, and they do. I did not say my argument encompasses everything theorised by them, I merely made a connection. How do you think "favourable" genes are passed on? The less fortunate expire and thus fail to pass on their genes, while the more fortunate survive and manage to progreate and spread their genes. Therefore it would be logical to assume that "criminals" caught by victimised families and dealt with (Let's assume they kill them, for example) cannot pass on their genes, thus rendering their cause to commit crime, less evident within a community. Anyway, this is all beside my main point. What initially was a side-comment, has now become the main focus for debate. My main point was to express how I think society should view crime & punishment. I simply believe it's outrageous to wave your rights to a centralised monolithic body. I'd urge those conditioned by day-to-day life, to think outside of the box or outside of social restraints for a few moments.
Much agreed. ...if people started doing just that [even for a few moments] it would mean that most Americans would stop eating McDonalds, turn off their TV and read a book instead and we would have someone other then BUSH as president. I guess natural selection did not apply to him. What a pitty.
Here's what I saw: and And this is where I think you have gone wrong - you are making an illogical leap between a consciousless process and a conscious decision; you are bringing in engineering to an undesigned process; you are talking about individuals and not populations. In essence, you are simply arguing for a lawless society, which isn't related to "natural selection," for reasons I already stated: natural selection deals with populations and gene pools - a given gene expression surviving long enough to pass itself on. In your example, you are dealing with individuals, and not populations possessed of a genetic trait, and probabilities therefore for increased concentration of that genetic trait; and you are making a normative argument. This isn't related to natural selection. In your example, let's call it "smart" and "dumb." You may have smart criminals, dumb criminals, smart victim's families, and dumb victim's families. Two things: in your world, you only posed "smart" famlies wasting "dumb" criminals. But the opposite also obtains. And so you have "smart criminals" freely roaming the land, committing a social evil; society devolves to a lower order. You also lump "smart" too easily in the construct of genetic endowments. Is there a "murder gene," coupled with a "dumb murderer" gene, that will somehow be eliminated by overwhelmingly "smart"-gene endowed families? Again, you are making a social contract argument, not one drawn from natural selection.
Well put forward Northpointaiki, I see where my mistake was. When it comes down to technicalities, like you have shown, the link I made shows no real relevance. When describing my views, I mistakenly used "Natural Selection", when I actually meant the general "Survival of the fittest". My apologies for the confusion. It seems Evolution, natural selection, the connotations of the phrase "survival of the fittest" - Darwin's theories in general - are easily confused when glazed over so-to-speak.
No worries, brum - one of the problems with the web, we miss the nuance of each other's points. I do understand what you're saying, though I can't agree. But I appreciate the thought nonetheless. I don't support the death penalty, simply on the basis that once someone is apprehended, I do not have the right to end his life - I do not have the right, and my proxy, the state does not have the right. In the instant, if needs be, well...
Normally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, " My special congratulations to you", because most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief - he is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him.
But what if his parents are Atheists and he becomes some form of Deist? [Disclaimer: I am an Atheist. I never spoke to my parents about religion.]
Consoling the condemned man? I'd just say, 'Eh.. Stop whining dude, you killed that person and thats why you are going to die. It's okay.. Because once you are dead, you will not feel anything.. any pain..".