-deleted-

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[mrswdk]

Darwinism is now a school of thought?

All Darwin said was that those beings which are most suited to their environment are the ones most likely to survive. 'Survival of the fittest' doesn't mean that life is a competition in which the strong will crush the weak, just that those who are not 'fitted' well to their environment are unlikely to survive.

I fail to see how believing that natural selection is a genuine phenomena conflicts with donating to charity.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[mrswdk]

There's no 'should' in anything that Darwin said. You're talking about eugenics, which is something else entirely.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[2dimes]

Ah, natural selection, survival of the fittest.

I was wondering what you were suggesting.

Safety laws are even worse. I think you should be allowed to wear a helmet, perhaps encouraged. But never forced or required by legislation..

[chang50]

So, this forum has been subject to quite a bit of gasbaggin' about morality lately. My open to discussion question is, can you claim to uphold darwinism, whilst donating to charity, without being a hypocrite?
In order to be intellectually honest and consistent, would you have to abstain from all charitable contributions?

If by Darwinism you mean the theory of evolution as interpreted by all kinds of political groups then many charlatans have attatched themselves to a respectable scientific theory to advance their agenda.
Richard Dawkins talks at some length about this misconception.The theory is not a worldview so needs no upholding,anymore than the theory of gravity does.If you want to challenge the science of evolution then you must produce another scientific hypothesis,test it,etc.Btw charity can often be self-interested anyway.

[BigBallinStalin]

Positive claims (Darwinism) are distinct from normative claims (what should be done/morality). It doesn't help to conflate the two types.

[mrswdk]

Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature... if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[crispybits]

Btw charity can often be self-interested anyway.

Yes this is a good point. But I'd argue that'd mainly be emotional benefit, which wouldn't apply to a furthering of the species type premise.

Not necessarily - Mr X gives loads of money/time to charity and is seen to do so, people admire and respect him more = more chances to breed and continue his genes into the next generation.

"Darwinism" isn't a moral philosophy. It doesn't claim that anything is right or wrong, it simply describes something about how he universe works.

And by the way - I really hate the terms "darwinist" and "evolutionist".

[Metsfanmax]

So, this forum has been subject to quite a bit of gasbaggin' about morality lately. My open to discussion question is, can you claim to uphold darwinism, whilst donating to charity, without being a hypocrite?
In order to be intellectually honest and consistent, would you have to abstain from all charitable contributions?

Depends on what you mean by "Darwinism." Darwin himself, who just had the faintest inkling of what was to come in the study of evolution, did not fully understand the mechanisms by which traits could be passed on to future generations. Darwin viewed life as a competition between individuals within species, and as a competition between species. In each case, he assumed what we now call "survival of the fittest." But there have been plenty ideas added to our understanding of evolutionary theory with time, that don't directly correspond to that idea. You can read a lot of the meme theory of Dawkins to understand how this might work. Indeed, there's a whole subfield of work that attempts to understand how altruism has developed evolutionarily (there is no doubt that altruism exists in non-human species). So no, altruism likely doesn't make sense if all you've read about evolution is The Origin of Species, but then again why are you stuck in the 1860s?

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[crispybits]

And by the way - I really hate the terms "darwinist" and "evolutionist".

That is because you do not agree that they cannot be world views. I disagree. So long as I'm tagged a theist, you guys will be evolutionists

Define world view please.

Also, interesting that you ignore the part of my post that stays on topic...

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[crispybits]

I said money OR time, and I didnt specify an amount. Someone could, for example, engage with a charity and only give $1 per month, but through that they get invited along to donor social/fundraiser events which give them more chances to find potential mates. Doesnt delay his chance to buy anything significantly, but opens up whole new social circles that would not have been accessible otherwise.

I just want what you think constitutes a world view. Yes it is a bit of a trap question, but that's the point of a debate. To challenge each other's positions on a topic and learn more about whatever stuff is being discussed from different viewpoints (even if you don't agree and don't change your opinion, at least you're hopefully a little bit better informed).

[Metsfanmax]

And by the way - I really hate the terms "darwinist" and "evolutionist".

That is because you do not agree that they cannot be world views. I disagree. So long as I'm tagged a theist, you guys will be evolutionists

No, it's because it's not evolution that is the world view -- it is the scientific method. You either believe that the scientific method reveals truths about the universe, or you don't. It's silly to cherry-pick evolution as the one example where the method incomprehensibly fails to explain the world, so taking exception to evolution is really taking exception to the world view that we can get at what is really going in nature through scientific exploration.

[chang50]

And by the way - I really hate the terms "darwinist" and "evolutionist".

That is because you do not agree that they cannot be world views. I disagree. So long as I'm tagged a theist, you guys will be evolutionists

Define world view please.

Also, interesting that you ignore the part of my post that stays on topic...

I've never ever heard of a single theist who objected to that description,I mean you do believe in the existence of gods,don't you?Why single out a single scientific theory that even most Christians accept as true to describe someone.Why evolutionist any more than Gravitationist,or Germ theory of Diseasist?Sounds kinda daft put like that doesn't it?

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh, don't be such a logicist!

[crispybits]

Hang on, if we're followers of the scientific method, doesn't that make us methodists?

[AndyDufresne]

Hang on, if we're followers of the scientific method, doesn't that make us methodists?

I don't know.

Who here is also an Anti-Dentite?


--Andy

[john9blue]

Didn't ignore it. I read it and didn't feel it particularly needed a response. In your particular example, where is the proportionate line of reason? ie. If he needs to splash out 10k to a charity to get recognition and respect from his peers, but he's on a low wage, would this high imposition on his lifestyle be worth the small amount of recognition (and small increase in the chance of getting an opportunity to propagate his DNA?). This could only increase his chance of "breeding" as you put it by 1-2%, whilst delaying his ability to say, buy a car, for 5 years or so, or perhaps he now has to live off inferior food to get back to financial stability, degenerating his health. Is there a graph, or a chart we can follow?
It's the same issue with utilitarianism, how much benefit has to occur to offset a particular amount of suffering caused from it. Who writes the guidelines?

just because we can't measure something doesn't mean it's not there

[DoomYoshi]

There's no 'should' in anything that Darwin said. You're talking about eugenics, which is something else entirely.

End of thread. Haha should die for making this thread.

[Lootifer]

So, this forum has been subject to quite a bit of gasbaggin' about morality lately. My open to discussion question is, can you claim to uphold darwinism, whilst donating to charity, without being a hypocrite?
In order to be intellectually honest and consistent, would you have to abstain from all charitable contributions?

"Darwinism" as you define it is not black and white. Its a scale.

For example I can apply "darwinism" to some aspects of life (lets say competitive sports - only the best get to succeed) and not others (e.g. charity).