Where is Objectivism?

[Grames]

There was a recent thread about private prisons here. I am against them.

[Eiuol]

Right. So let's say all that is true, and the poor can never escape their condition. What does that have to do with Darwin? Being poor, uneducated, without access to cutting edge healthcare tech, etc. doesn't mean your genes will die out. Look at all the countries filled with poor people: Not only are they not dying out, their population is expanding at a much higher rate than those of rich countries. And within individual societies, the poor are having more (viable) offspring than the rich.

So I don't understand the choice of metaphor. If anything, statistics say that being rich and highly educated is what is more likely to lead to the extinction of a bloodline, not being poor.

I stand corrected on the origin of social Darwinism being an ideology, but the discussion is still about a type of social condition. I think you're taking the analogy too literally; Social Darwinism here is used to describe a state of society. The analogy is for socioeconomics, not actually living or dying. Rather, it's about privilege versus nonprivilege. Consider how monarchies in the past used their wealth to subjugate others, and that power often stayed in place until another monarchy took over, still leaving the poor in terrible living conditions with no means to climb a ladder of privilege. Being a serf is hardly a situation you can get out of without manipulation. There are two ways to think about what leads to pretty bad conditions of some people in medieval Europe. One is that a profit motive is a corrupting force that wants to dominate other people, without regard to harm that may come to others. That isn't a totally ridiculous conclusion; the people with a lot of money were the abusers of individuals who may very well explicitly see the poor as inferior people by nature. Objectivism, though, suggests the issue is actually individual rights. Simply acting without regard to rights will lead to the same bad conditions for a serf on a manor. All money enabled is paying bribes, arranging marriages to solidify power through dowries (and other benefits), finding support from the church (which was also out for power/authority!), and so on. In other words, money was used as a means to pretend rights didn't exist.

What is the solution, then? Individual rights matter first and foremost, which is the way Objectivism is like classical liberalism. Capitalism is an arrangement of society to achieve that end. What leads to a state of social Darwinism is ignoring individual rights, not money or inheritance. That's how the Industrial Revolution period led to increased prosperity overall, despite there still being abuses of rights in some places.

Edited June 24, 2012 by Eiuol

[ppw]

This is why I call myself an Objectivist Idealist. I know that it is an ideal and as such, can only work in a morally ideal environment.

This has absolutely nothing to do with idealism, just a full embrace of the (false!) moral-practical dichotomy.

[Nicky]

I stand corrected on the origin of social Darwinism being an ideology, but the discussion is still about a type of social condition. I think you're taking the analogy too literally; Social Darwinism here is used to describe a state of society. The analogy is for socioeconomics, not actually living or dying. Rather, it's about privilege versus nonprivilege.

So what's the analogy?

In the case of Darwin's theory and Social Darwinism (as commonly used), the common element is the actual killing off (or at least sterilization) of those unfit or deemed unfit to live. If that isn't the common element (because no one is getting killed off, all genes, fit and unfit, are passed on), then what is? What justifies drawing a parallel between the two? Or between Darwin's theory and feudalism, for that matter?

[Spiral Architect]

We need to relook at our talking points.

• There is no such thing as “pure” or “ideal” Objectivism. It is a philosophy and even its own admirers discuss application, but at the end it is a philosophy for living on earth. If you disagree with or don’t understand how to apply something then you are in the right place to ask and chew on these ideas.
  
• Individualism does not need checks. It needs to be discovered.
  
• Atlas Shrugged is art. It is an ideal recreation of reality to highlight the artist’s values and further inspire others and their values. As such it ignores subjects nonessential to its purpose. Reality has those, which is why art is so important. To sort it out is the process of philosophy or specific sciences in application (like economics). Again you are at the right place to do this.
  
• The argument against inheritance is a straw man made popular by Marx. It exists because of the very practical reality that someone who earned it decided upon death to give it to someone else, which is his right since he earned it. A person’ life just doesn’t vaporize and return to the ether magically. To assume you have a right to determine what the deceased does with it violates that person’s rights. To imply it is immoral for that person to give it to someone else or for their benefactor to honor the wish of who is presumably a love one is frankly silly. I wouldn’t tell my parents “Don’t leave we anything, I didn’t earn it so keep your life work to yourself!” I’d say, if I had the chance, “I love you too and will cherish the memories.”
  
• Darwinism has no place being discussed in terms of human action. Darwinism is applied to nature since nature does not have free will, therefore plants and animals adapt over time to changes to insure survival. Humans do have free will and change their environment to survive. Animals adapt to their environment, we adapt the environment to us. People are not helpless pawns to society unless that society is immoral enough to force itself on the individual, which is clearly not Objectivism.
  
• Finally, Objectivist theory of government is not anti-government, it is pro proper use of government.
  

[Spiral Architect]

I forgot one part:

• There is no practicing “Objectivism as an ideal” that “cannot be obtained”. Objectivism does no separate ethics from reality. The point of Objectivism is to be a philosophy for living on earth. It is a practical guide for living by striving to understand and meet the requirements to achieve happiness and thriving. That is why it comes with principles derived from realty so you can rationally apply those principles to day-to-day life. If not then you have rules that need no input from you, which is dogma and the same guilt trap of religion.
  

Edited June 25, 2012 by Spiral Architect

[Eiuol]

So what's the analogy?

In the case of Darwin's theory and Social Darwinism (as commonly used), the common element is the actual killing off (or at least sterilization) of those unfit or deemed unfit to live. If that isn't the common element (because no one is getting killed off, all genes, fit and unfit, are passed on), then what is? What justifies drawing a parallel between the two? Or between Darwin's theory and feudalism, for that matter?

Being "king of the jungle" where being a superior person allows one to live a vibrant lifestyle while harming or abusing others, like a lion might as a predator. The weaker/poorer/dumber people are unable to attain a similar survival fitness. I'm not saying calling this Social Darwinism is the best phrase considering how explicit advocates of social Darwinism believed in eugenics and whatnot, but this analogy works alright and this is what people mean. Similarly, people may use the word "selfish" in a poor or misleading way, but most people *mean* taking advantage of others or sacrificing others to self. Say "Social Natural Selection" rather than Social Darwinism if you prefer.

[Hairnet]

Okay, if you guys want to talk about Social Darwinism I suggest looking up Herbert Spencer, to whom this term is often attributed too.

He was a sociologist and philosopher. He advocated a capitalist government because he said that it was necessary for the progress of man . He argued that socialism would lead to stagnation because it didn't encourage men to be develope and pass on the values required to survive. H. L. Mencken later took some of these views and combined them with nietzche's, creating a very strong argument for capitalism. H. L. Mencken was a signifigant influence on Ayn Rand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer#Social_Darwinism