Survival of the fittest implies might makes right

From EvoWiki

Contents 1 Claim 2 Source 3 Responses 4 Fallacies contained in this claim 5 External Links 6 Further Reading 7 Related claims 8 See Also

Claim

Survival of the fittest implies that "might makes right" is a proper guide to behavior.

Source

• Keyes, Alan, 7 July 2001. Survival of the fittest? WorldNetDaily, [1]
• Carrell, Bill, Reflections on Natural Selection [2]
• Nice, Daniel L., Evolution: Science or Humanism? [3]

Responses

1. Humans, being moral and ethical, do not act merely on simple impulses but can develop and value larger moral principles to shape their actions. The existence of evolution as a biological fact does not address the issue of how we should behave as moral and ethical people, any more than the existence of carnivores and herbivores is proof that humans should avoid (or become) vegetarians! We can refrain from murder, even when we get angry at others; we can refrain from theft, even when others have what we want; etc. We can refrain from coercing others, even when we have the power to force them to obey us.
2. Survival of the fittest is just that: Survival of the fittest. Fitness is often interpreted as aggressiveness and brutality, but this is simply wrong. Many species that have been around for a long time and have proven themselves to be extremely fit are non-aggressive. Their "fitness for survival" lies in exceptional senses, speed, natural defenses (as in turtles), camouflage, social systems ranging from herds that defend their young together to insect hive states or simply an amazing reproduction rate. Even the most feared predators are often cautious of animals that fight for no good reason.
3. Creationists who make this claim are painfully ignorant that Evolutionary Biology does not prescribe or proscribe the use of brute strength to solve every dilemna, in nature, in society or otherwise, that arises.
4. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "right makes might?" Morality and other forms of symbiotic social behavior might be products of natural selection as they increase overall fitness. Why don't intensely violent/amoral cultures rule the world? Maybe they are weaker for their lack of cooperation and society.
5. The term Survival of the fittest was first used by Herbert Spencer, a Social Darwinist, and not originally by Charles Darwin himself. Moreover, most biologists prefer the phrase natural selection, as survival of the fittest lends itself towards a variety of unhelpful interpretations and fallacies.
6. A fact does not tell us how we should behave. "Survival of the fittest" is an observation about how the natural world works; it is not an imperative statement about how ethics should function. This argument is a form of naturalistic fallacy.
7. A descriptive phrase ("survival of the fittest") in no way implies a prescriptive phrase ("might makes right").
8. add more responses

Fallacies contained in this claim

• Appeal to Consequences (evolution leads where we don't want to go)
• Naturalistic fallacy (confusing is with ought)

External Links

• Mark Isaak's page for this claim [4]
• Wilkins, John, 1997. Evolution and Philosophy: Does evolution make might right? [5]
• CreationWiki's comments [6]

Further Reading

• Hume, David, (1779) 1947. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion [7], N.K. Smith, ed., Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Related claims

• Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview
• Evolution leads to social darwinism
• Marx admired and corresponded with Darwin
• Hitler based his views on Darwinism

See Also

• Why is Creationism not a Scientific Theory?