A defense of the coherency of Social Darwinism

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

This is a defense of the coherency of Social Darwinism, not an advocation of it, meaning there will be no impetus to implement (or further implement) the ideology in action, nor will there be any advocation of it’s conceivable preferabilty to other ideologies. This is simply to show that it’s at least as coherent an ideology as any.

This is how I define Social Darwinism, should any other definition be preferred, then please state the objection to my definition, offer your own, and then rather than offer an argument against an argument I haven’t made, offer any arguments you may have to the content of my definition. In other words, if my definition referring to the term ‘Social Darwinism’ is unacceptable, then let my definition refer to what ever term you wish.

Social Darwinism: Taking principals deduced from the unconscious dynamic of hominid evolution, and actively applying them in a broad way to the further evolution of contemporary humans as a whole.

The argument against Social Darwinism as a coherent ideology, seems to be that it’s based on a fallacy that since humans evolved out of simpler hominids one way doesn’t mean that that way should be how they continue to evolve.

The argument works against those advocates of Social Darwinism who leave the ‘why’ that would apply to the ‘should’ unexplained. Such advocates may not have a reason beyond the fallacious assumption that there’s a prerogative to insist upon the reinstatement of nature (in some regards at least) as it was before the majority of human intervention.

Even within those parameters, it should be mentioned, that an opposing ideology, (if unnamed, then best described as the-ideology-which-opposes-Social-Darwinism) is equally incoherent if it doesn’t explain why there is a prerogative to not insist upon the reinstatement of nature as it was before the majority of human intervention.

The fact is that as soon as humans became intelligent enough to be aware that their offspring are the mixed product of the two involved in a union, and that both traits perceived as negative and positive in an offspring may appear in the offspring’s offspring somewhere down the line, various cultures of humans have from time to time consciously adapted their choices of procreation partners according to the desired outcome of their offspring and offspring’s offspring down the line.

This practice could have been done in as simple a form as one person selecting a mate in part due to this foresight, suppressing desires to the contrary if necessary, or as complex a way as an entire society of early humans, making strict cultural rules pertaining to who can and who can’t mate and to whom, based on criteria anywhere from as simple as basic appearance of an individual to long running tests of abilities.

So people have been, at times, letting there will circumvent their passions for thousands of years, Social Darwinism, is just one way among many of guiding this circumvention.

2

So You are saying, Social Darwinism is analogous to Natural Darwinism, in that both are conscious processes based on the principles underlying selecting attributable qualities with the aim of producing more desirable products thereof?

Would conscious selection , as opposed to unconscious, be more relevant, and statistically significant? Or, would such distinction not be measurable in any study, were such made? One problem with seeking a study like this would be clearly distinguishing conscious from unconscious processes.

In lower organisms , such as butterflies color itself is is a desirable attribute, in natural selection. Higher organisms have increasingly numerous desirable attributes. Human beings, evolve into sensing psychic qualities into the list. As soon as that happens, it could be claimed, that selection ‘spilled over’ into the consciousness. Is there a sudden jump, or does one gradually blend into the other?

In what sense does this distinction, or lack of,make or break the idea of Social Coherency?

3

Yeah, I too have to ask where the “coherency” issue comes in.

What is the incoherency argument that is being defended against?
From that, what is the “coherency” rectification?

4

What he ^ said.

5

Social Darwinism would involve conscious decisions at least on the part of those compelling the ideology into practice, while Natural Darwinism can be in part due to conscious decisions, but it need not be.

All that need be established is that conscious decisions are often a part of the continued evolution (or devolution) of humans in contexts that have nothing to do with the ideology of Social Darwinism to show that Social Darwinism can’t be labeled incoherent based on its necessary conscious elements.

6
7

So are you proposing that Social Darwinism is coherent because it allows for socially coherent contrived evolution, “manevolution”?

I can’t think of anything that would make it “incoherent” per se, merely irrational.

And I can tell you that if people keep trying to dictate the future of homosapian, there is certainly not going to be one.

8

Could you rephrase this, perhaps, elaborating on the various chunks. I had the most trouble with the part I bolded.

It seems like, but I am not sure, that this is going against social darwinism, since it would be changing the way procreation happens. IOW there would be a gap between what went before with homonids when they did not realize traits could be passed and were passed on.

9

With the exception of the poor choice of word; “manevolution”, why not? When has contrivance ever implied incoherency?

Would you say it’s irrational, or have you heard others claim its irrational, for any other reason than your claim that it precludes the chances for a future for homosapians?

10

How about: The practice of willfully/artificially applying/reapplying the theoretical practices for general hominid evolution on the human species, to compensate for other willful acts that have detrimentally affected the human species, such as civilization?

Exactly, social Darwinism is about the hypothetical attempt to artificially reverse some of the these other acts of artificiality. Basically, all that was meant by the portion you quoted was to show that evolution was being circumvented since humans first had some conceptualization of the long term effects of choices in procreation partners, and an attempt at a reversal is no more incoherent than the original practices of circumvention.

Yes, without this gap, then what could Social Darwinism be an attempt at changing?

11

I think social Darwninism is coherent as described in the opening post. I wouldn’t criticize it on incoherence, I’d criticize the notion that there is a ‘we’ that ought to be applying their ‘principles’ to the future of human evolution. I’d much rather we leave each other alone…why does every social theory presume that mankind’s future is this target that’s eligible for a handful of academic/charismatic/rich elites to determine or tinker with?

12

Is social engineering irrational if it precludes the future of homosapian?
Hmm…

I would say that screwing over every generation for sake of a non-existent future Utopian fantasy creature, is pretty irrational… in fact, truly insane. And no, I didn’t get that from rumor - my own deduction.

13 
 Thank You Stuart for establishing this, and i agree, definitionally this works, however what i am having trouble with is it,s value neutral objectivism. Let's say, at some point in the evolution/devolution of it's program, there may be residence, either based on ideological or natural doubt, and not the coherency, but the rational of it's conscious application is brought into question.

 Would not this result in an irrational drift between ideology and application, on a conscious level?  Or,would the application by this time become by this time a rote process, likened to an unconscious process?  For instance , to shift gears, any ideology could be seen in terms of Social Darwinism, the one that most obviously comes to mind is the emerging, oft cited rift which occurs within a so called corporate elitism within  a democratic field.  The field has, for practical purposes become a plastic or topical field, almost rote in it's institutionalized acceptance. The corporate structure is not usually hegemonies in this way, and it is definitionally incoherent at times with the undemocratic way international corporations do business. The aims and procedures of one, do not cohere with the other.  Maybe here, a distinction between seeing this irresolute relationship as one, in which, the most can be said, is that they are structurally different? The topical recognition of the application could not, cohere with it's ideologue's structural basis.  But then, the application, could not survive an attack on another front:  How conscious is the process of the application of such an ideology?  I do not think a neutral, coherence can be established, without an evaluation of both.  If so the coherence can not stand it's ground.  It is not to say, that it has not happened, but when it, did, it inadvertently failed.  

 Your point is taken factually, but not as programmatically useful, and the term irrational, may describe such a program's necessity, on utilitarian, and not on coherent grounds. But then utility again has to confirm this.
14 
 Thank You Stuart for establishing this, and i agree, definitionally this works, however what i am having trouble with is it,s value neutral objectivism. Let's say, at some point in the evolution/devolution of it's program, there may be residence, either based on ideological or natural doubt, and not the coherency, but the rational of it's conscious application is brought into question.

 Would not this result in an irrational drift between ideology and application, on a conscious level?  Or,would the application by this time become by this time a rote process, likened to an unconscious process?  For instance , to shift gears, any ideology could be seen in terms of Social Darwinism, the one that most obviously comes to mind is the emerging, oft cited rift which occurs within a so called corporate elitism within  a democratic field.  The field has, for practical purposes become a plastic or topical field, almost rote in it's institutionalized acceptance. The corporate structure is not usually hegemonies in this way, and it is definitionally incoherent at times with the undemocratic way international corporations do business. The aims and procedures of one, do not cohere with the other.  Maybe here, a distinction between seeing this irresolute relationship as one, in which, the most can be said, is that they are structurally different? The topical recognition of the application could not, cohere with it's ideologue's structural basis.  But then, the application, could not survive an attack on another front:  How conscious is the process of the application of such an ideology?  I do not think a neutral, coherence can be established, without an evaluation of both.  If so the coherence can not stand it's ground.  It is not to say, that it has not happened, but when it, did, it inadvertently failed.  

 Your point is taken factually, but not as programmatically useful, and the term irrational, may describe such a program's necessity, on utilitarian, and not on coherent grounds. But then utility again has to confirm this.
15 
 Thank You Stuart for establishing this, and i agree, definitionally this works, however what i am having trouble with is it,s value neutral objectivism. Let's say, at some point in the evolution/devolution of it's program, there may be residence, either based on ideological or natural doubt, and not the coherency, but the rational of it's conscious application is brought into question.

 Would not this result in an irrational drift between ideology and application, on a conscious level?  Or,would the application by this time become by this time a rote process, likened to an unconscious process?  For instance , to shift gears, any ideology could be seen in terms of Social Darwinism, the one that most obviously comes to mind is the emerging, oft cited rift which occurs within a so called corporate elitism within  a democratic field.  The field has, for practical purposes become a plastic or topical field, almost rote in it's institutionalized acceptance. The corporate structure is not usually hegemonies in this way, and it is definitionally incoherent at times with the undemocratic way international corporations do business. The aims and procedures of one, do not cohere with the other.  Maybe here, a distinction between seeing this irresolute relationship as one, in which, the most can be said, is that they are structurally different? The topical recognition of the application could not, cohere with it's ideologue's structural basis.  But then, the application, could not survive an attack on another front:  How conscious is the process of the application of such an ideology?  I do not think a neutral, coherence can be established, without an evaluation of both.  If so the coherence can not stand it's ground.  It is not to say, that it has not happened, but when it, did, it inadvertently failed.  

 Your point is taken factually, but not as programmatically useful, and the term irrational, may describe such a program's necessity, on utilitarian, and not on coherent grounds. But then utility again has to confirm this.
16

Presumably, either option’s possible.

Those who expect there to be any Democratic elements to corporations, not even to speak of those who expect it to be consistent, may find them to be incoherent.

It seems the overarching goals are generally understood by everyone in the upper part of the hierarchy.

How likely, would you say it would be that any ideology not in practce would be held by anyone in power?

That’s why it’s easier to just focus on coherency, not rationality.

17

Again we are back to consistency. Taken to it’s genesis, it may be easier to find an easier path to rationality by exercising consistently recurring patterns. However, on a social basis, such recognition will be more a matter of assuming that such patterns exist. Certainly, in the lower primates , aggregates of form and color are the draw, but here?

Can a formal development of those evolutionary recurrent patterns come psychic-social patterns, be said to “evolve” in the continuous evolutionary process? If You start the other way, such patterns already exist, they are instinctual-cognitive, no need to go there.

 So coherence is easier, because You can bypass the myth of the symbolic, and the Natural,  and go directly to a meaningful  redundancy similes.

 That would be ok,if it was a progressive age of compensating surplus value.  But there is gross de compensation going on, hand i hand with de structuring of what remains of coherency.

Thereby to point to the easier way of going into the nothingness of an overfilled, over saturated redundancy, really like telling everyone, that the world is ready for that 95/5 leap.

So , no wonder coherency may look easier, personally, to characters like You and me, and others on ILP, but the new generations? The would insist on a literal coherency , a rationally progressive one.