Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

TV special trashes social Darwinism: But was it really Darwinism?

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Apparently, Coral Ridge Hour, hosted by Dr. D. James Kennedy, is hosting a special called Darwin’s Deadly Legacy, on the legacy of social Darwinism (= sterilizing or murdering people who are thought to be unfit, sometimes called eugenics). There is a whole history there, ably recounted in a sober way by Richard Weikart’s From Darwin to Hitler.

I think it quite worthwhile that Coral Ridge would want to explore the legacy of social Darwinism, on the “never again” principle. However, some cautions are also well advised.

Strictly speaking, the social Darwinists were completely off the wall in their understanding of Darwinism, as agnostic Australian philosopher David Stove points out.

For example, Darwin himself disapproved, apparently, of vaccination because it preserved weak people:

Consider, for example, the following paragraph from The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, (second edition, 1874).

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poorlaws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. (p. 9, quoting Darwin, c. (1874) The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (2nd edition) John Murray, London, Vol. I, pp. 205-6.)

Now, in writing as he did in this specific instance, Darwin was being a true Darwinist (though according to Stove’s Darwinian Fairytales, he often wasn’t).

That is, if you believe that natural selection is the main force that creates diversity and adaptation in the world, you should not interfere via eugenics. After all, the prison sociopath’s selfish genes are probably much better adapted to sheer survival and continuance than are those of the musical genius. The prison socio may well produce eight children on his “trailer weekends,” whom he compels other men to support. The musical genius, by contrast, may produce one or two at best, but very often none.

Yet most human beings who have ever lived would prefer to forego the evolutionary benefits of the sociopath’s selfish genes. Whenever they can, they execute him or keep him locked up, and offer awards, prizes, and fan clubs to the musical genius instead. That approach to human survival seems quite sound to me – but it is hardly Darwinism.

Here’s where the social Darwinists went wrong: They took from Darwinism the lack of respect for the human being as anything other than a brainy ape. But they still wanted to smuggle into Darwinian philosophy at least some respect for human culture and decency, because they were not willing to give all that up. So they developed the worst possible solution: Instead of helping the halt, the lame, and the blind, as well as bumpkins and dullards, because God loves them (the traditional view) OR letting nature take its course (the only reasonable Darwinian view), the social Darwinist came up with a new view that was far worse than either: A system for mass riddance of people who fail a cultural or medical standard.

If they were true Darwinists, they would have just done nothing instead of done murder, for the same reason that Darwin saw a danger in vaccinations.
So we need to be clear here: Social Darwinism is very bad. But, strictly speaking, it is not Darwinism. No human being can live with what Darwinism entails, which is why it so quickly morphed into a bastard social Darwinism.

Neither Darwin nor most of his loyal followers clearly saw the problem because they could not live with the consequences of their own theory. The confusion continues: After the Nazi eugenic horror was fully revealed, people decided to get rid of social Darwinism, but assumed that it was Darwinism in some sense. They couldn’t have lived with Darwiism either, but they did not realize that. 

Then we reacted by vilifying the Nazis – which is 100 percent fine with me, as far as it goes – but, as Richard Weikart points out, we must see clearly the origin of the problem or we have no assurance that we won’t repeat it: Darwinism cannot provide a reasonable account of the human being.

Comments
Carlos, Good distinctions, thank you for you clarifications. Although, contra your distinctions, some of them may be subject to equivocation without a loss of original meaning or intent on Singer's part, which would seem that in the end they are, in effect, the same. Let's assume for a moment that "the reasoning underpinning his ethical positions is not based on his commitment to Darwinism." My issue is that he uses Social Darwinism's biological ambiguity to underpin his ethics. That is plain enough from his views I discussed in my first comment. So, why is it so logically convenient and rhetorically effective to use Social Darwinian ambiguity to defend his ethical positions? And, if, in effect, Darwinian ambiguity is logically effective as an apologia, then is Singer's utilitarianism on some levels indistinguishable from Social Darwinism?Inquisitive Brain
August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
To fill in the gaps a bit... By giving unhealthy kids medicine, etc. we are allowing these kids reach great strides in advancing our culture. Think about Hawking. He surely is a weak individual. But, his contributions to our understanding of the universe and cosmology have been immense. A "straw-man Darwinist" would argue that he should've died of his disease a long time ago, before he could waste our resources and father children. But, that "straw-man Darwinist" ignored a large factor, his potential genius as a mathematician and physicist. You can argue against that straw-man all you want. I'll even join you. But, don't think that because one subscribes to the ToE, one has to go around killing weak kids or the infirm.Strangelove
August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
"Since we’re talking about Darwinism here, does it not all boil down to reproductive fitness?" We, as humans pass down much more to our children than genes. Art, History, Literature, Science, Music, etc. All of these things GREATLY improve our standard of living and thus increase our chance for our species' survival. Yet none of those things require genetic code to pass on. This is an obvious point that social Darwinists haven't been able to include into their model. Models that ignore key elements aren't known to deliver good results, so why should you expect them to.Strangelove
August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
Carlos said: “The ToE doesn’t require a single type of fitness (our health). A musical genius with a heart condition produces more for the species as a whole as a composer than as a corpse. It is almost always in our species’ best interest to help the poor, have compassion on the sick, rehabillitate the criminals, and treat the mentally ill. For the usefullness of a human cannot be simplified to how many children they have. This is why no one today (that I know about) takes such a foolish, simplified position.” At the heart of the ToE is heritable fitness, not usefulness of the moment. A blind horse can still do useful work, but the blindness itself does not represent an improvement in fitness to be preserved; quite the opposite. The genetic survival of the human race is not enhanced by the preservation of “the sick, the criminal, or the mentally ill.” Indeed, it could be argued that it is accelerating our inevitable genetic death. To preserve and allow to propagate such a flawed genetic blueprint would, according to Darwin, only contribute to the degeneration of the species, the “descent of man” to use Darwin’s phrase. The difference between what the modern Eugenics movement espoused and what Darwin supported (if only reluctantly), as Denyse O’Leary points out, was use of a pro-active approach versus a non-proactive one (if I understand correctly). However, while it may not be in our species’ (genetic) best interests to behave in an altruistic fashion, I do believe it is in society’s best interest. This is the point that blind adherence to Darwinism and/or eugenics misses. It is also something that is so obvious to those with a sense of morality that is grounded in the belief that humanity is special among all creatures. Respectfully, Sabresabre
August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
The question I would like answered is: What is NOT “Social Darwinism” about Singer? Singer is a Darwinist, but not a social Darwinist, because he does not reason as a social Darwinist does. A social Darwinist's reasoning is, "let's do whatever we can to increase the overall fitness of members of our society." Singer's reasoning is, "let's do whatever we can to increase the overall satisfaction of preferences held by all persons likely to be affected by our actions." (What makes Singer intriguing to many, and disturbing to some, is that he doesn't think that all and only human beings are persons. Singer argues that there are both human beings who aren't persons -- fetuses and babies -- as well as persons who aren't human beings -- most of the higher mammals. This is why Singer thinks that infanticide is morally permissible, but factory farming is not.) Singer's philosophical position is a modified version of utilitarianism, which was developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Darwin's work was published during Mill's lifetime, but Mill apparently did not consider it any more than an interesting hypothesis, and certainly not the foundation for his own ethical theory. It's true that some social Darwinists, such as Herbert Spencer, were influenced by utilitarianism. And it's also true that Peter Singer is both a utilitarian and a Darwinist. But the reasoning underpinning his ethical positions is not based on his commitment to Darwinism. If history is any guide, Darwinism is compatible with a broad variety of ethical and political positions, from the far right to the far left. But does it follow that neo-Darwinism does not have any ethical or political implications at all? It strikes me that neo-Darwinism, if accepted, would place a constraint on ethical and political views -- it would urge us to reject any ethical or political doctrine which insisted that humans are unique, absolutely different in kind, from all other animals. Theodosius Dobzhanky, one of the theorists of the "Modern Synthesis" (i.e. the integration of natural selection and population genetics), tried to reconcile his neo-Darwinism with his Russian Orthodoxy by saying, "all species are unique, but humans are the uniquest." I'm not sure if this is anything more than a valiant effort to square the circle.Carlos
August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
If we are 100% the product of physics and chemistry, isn’t our social behavior a product of those forces as well? Yes, but that's evolutionary psychology, not social darwinism. Also, O'Leary, I think you're really jumping the gun by saying Darwinism prescribes this sort of laissez-faire morality. The TOE aims to describe what did happen and what is happening...not an ideal toward which we should strive.ThePolynomial
August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
russ: "Strangelove, I’ve never exactly understood how “social Darwinism” is different from 'Darwinism'. If we are 100% the product of physics and chemistry, isn’t our social behavior a product of those forces as well?" Presumably, social behavior can be traced ultimately to "physics and chemistry", but Darwinism is no more a theory of cultural evolution than it is of the weather. Scientific theories are necessarily limited in their domain of applicability — even "physics and chemistry". Natural selection is the differential reproductive success due to *heritable* characteristics. Culture works on different principles (though there may be some interesting analogs).Zachriel
August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
Strangelove: This is why no one today (that I know about) takes such a foolish, simplified position.
How about Peter Singer? In his view the central argument against abortion is "It is wrong to kill an innocent human being; a human fetus is an innocent human being; therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus." He challenges the first premise, on the grounds that its reference to human beings is ambiguous as between human beings in the zoological sense and persons as rational and self-conscious. (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer) Are we smelling the Social Darwinism yet? No? Consider Singer’s view in light of Darwin’s words: “Spiritual powers cannot be compared or classed by the naturalist: but he may endeavour to shew, as I have done, that the mental faculties of man and the lower animals do not differ in kind, although immensely in degree. A difference in degree, however great, does not justify us in placing man in a distinct kingdom…” (The Descent of Man, p 152 of the “Great Minds Series” edition) Still not smelling the Social Darwinism? In "A Darwinian Left," Singer outlines a plan for the political left to adapt to the lessons of Darwinism and evolutionary biology." (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer) The question I would like answered is: What is NOT "Social Darwinism" about Singer?
Strangelove: The ToE doesn’t require a single type of fitness (our health).
Seems to me it does. Since we're talking about Darwinism here, does it not all boil down to reproductive fitness? Wherein those individuals that are reproductively unsuccessful are not selected, and those that are selected survive to reproduce?
Strangelove: The ToE was not meant to be applied to the social dynamics of humans.
What is evolutionary psychology, if not exactly that?Inquisitive Brain
August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
I suppose that would depend on whether you think life is pre-determined or whether we have free will. Unless one thinks, a la Dennett, that free will itself can be explained in neo-Darwinian terms. But there are serious conceptual and empirical problems with this approach. Given that there's no shortage of neo-Darwinian "just-so stories" as to how morality, art, music, religion, etc. came into being, I'm curious as to what the ID criticism here is going to be. One way of getting at it is by focusing on objectivity. The ID criticism might go something like this: "sure, neo-Darwinian scenarios can tell us about how morality or art or religion might have evolved. But these scenarios fail because they cannot justify the objectivity of morality or religion, which is what we really want." Does this sound like a reasonable IDist position?Carlos
August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
If we are 100% the product of physics and chemistry, isn’t our social behavior a product of those forces as well? I suppose that would depend on whether you think life is pre-determined or whether we have free will.Alan Fox
August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
"The ToE was not meant to be applied to the social dynamics of humans. We are especially bad at scientifically studying our own behaviours." Strangelove, I've never exactly understood how "social Darwinism" is different from "Darwinism". If we are 100% the product of physics and chemistry, isn't our social behavior a product of those forces as well?russ
August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
chunkdz, The ToE was not meant to be applied to the social dynamics of humans. We are especially bad at scientifically studying our own behaviours. Social Darwinism is a notoriously faulty science. And no, it is not the dominant paradigm. Do you know anyone who uses social darwinism today to decide how to act or make laws?Strangelove
August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
Carlos, you have a good point. The ToE doesn't require a single type of fitness (our health). A musical genius with a heart condition produces more for the species as a whole as a composer than as a corpse. It is almost always in our species' best interest to help the poor, have compassion on the sick, rehabillitate the criminals, and treat the mentally ill. For the usefullness of a human cannot be simplified to how many children they have. This is why no one today (that I know about) takes such a foolish, simplified position.Strangelove
August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
Indeed, Denyse, the problem is that Darwinism can explain everything. Compassion and genocide have equal footing as beneficial survival traits. Monogamy and promiscuity are also equally demonstrable as survival mechanisms. What does one do when circular reasoning has become the dominant paradigm?chunkdz
August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
Above, O'Leary wrote, "No human being can live with what Darwinism entails." I'm not sure how to interpret that. I can clearly see how no society could function for very long without a widespread sense of compassion or empathy for others. That seems unobjectionable. If neo-Darwinist principles can work at all, they must begin from taking organisms as they are -- not as the theory says they must be. And many human beings display compassion and empathy towards their fellows, and even (or especially) towards the suffering and unfortunate. So if neo-Darwinism is to work out, it would have to explain this behavior. The assumption above, however, seems to be that neo-Darwinism cannot explain such behavior -- that morality is simply outside the purview of neo-Darwinist theories of evolution altogether. And if that's the assumption at work here, I confess that I really don't see how that argument is supposed to go.Carlos
August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply