Talk:Survival of the fittest implies might makes right

From EvoWiki

This article suggests Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion for further reading. I question whether this is appropriate. The article says that "'is' does not imply 'ought,'" which is apparently an allusion to Hume. The problem is that argument in question comes from Book III of A Treatise of Human Nature, not from his Dialogues. (Whether or not this is even an entirely accurate characterization of his position is a question I will leave for later.)

--C.B.

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.

This is inconsistent with a naturalistic philosophy. Of course humans can refrain from coercion, the point is that if a man with the proper ability chooses to do so, it isn't wrong. This also reveals a drastic misunderstanding of the principle of might makes right, as it has almost always been philosophically treated as a governing strategy. It's a hierarchical belief. So perhaps a murderer with the ability to kill could do so, but following the principle of "might makes right", capital punishment would be practical considering his crimes.

1. 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.

Once again, this is completely misinterpreting the philosophy. It isn't what is-ought, it's what is-IS. Therefore, there is no moral question to be applied to less aggressive life forms being preyed on by more aggressive ones. A comprehensive reading on the history of belief in "might makes right" will reveal that it is rooted in far more than "survival of the fittest." As it is a hierarchical principle, it implies that mere existence doesnt imply morality, but that power or the expression of such is perfectly "moral" as a means and an end.

1. 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.

Creationists rarely make this claim, as it is inconsistent with the Christian system of morality and set of principles. Concerning belief systems, paganism would be more fitting. Evolutionary Biology indeed does not necessarily entail the use of brute strength to solve problems, but at the same time it doesn't entail that the use of brute strength isn't morally disreputable.

1. 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.

I wasn't aware that there was a system of morality associated with naturalism/physicalism. Symbiotic social behavior has never been described as a moral behavior, merely efficient. Perhaps a naturalist would consider homosexuality inferior on the grounds of it's percieved inefficiency, or even married couples who do not have children. For the third time, "might makes right" isn't a philosophy necessarily of violence, only that the expression of power is a principle in and of itself. It does tend to be outwardly violent, but even liberal cultures today are outwardly violent, they are simply less efficient at it. One who paid attention to the course of history might understand that so called "cooperative"(Is this supposed to mean classically liberal?) have never gained power through quality, only in quantity. For all this article's talk about principles and ethics, it's arguments seem to be concerned with the numbers in the material sense and not quality in the immaterial sense.

1. 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.

Indeed, the only unhelpful interpretation here seems to be the writer of this article and his or her interpretation of "might makes right" as a belief system.

1. 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.

For hopefully finall time, "might makes right" has nothing to do with how society SHOULD be. It isn't an imperative statement, it's a statement of "being." As previously stated, it isn't what is-ought to be. It's what is-is. It isn't a positive belief system in that it states what should be done, it's simply a recognition of power as a governing principle.

1. A descriptive phrase ("survival of the fittest") in no way implies a prescriptive phrase ("might makes right").

Indeed, that is because "might makes right" isn't a prescriptive phrase.