How does a person rectify 'survival of the fittest' and morality?
People who whole heartedly accept the theory of evolution as their religion follow the creed: 'Survival of the fittest.' Yet, they also recognize that truly stepping on others to better yourself does not create a BETTER person or society but rather tears it down. Human history is evidence of that. In a recent issue of Scientific American though shows that now they are back peddling saying that ,'well, maybe we EVOLVED morality later on to have a more unified society'. Oh really? Explain to me how that is possible because everywhere you look, people still do NOT on the whole follow any moral code whatsoever.
I am curious as to your response on this matter. Oh, and for all you children out there, leave the insults at home. This is designed for people who want to engage in an intellectual discussion. If you truly have no answer, then shut up and go somewhere else.
AUSTIN: Therein lies the hypocrisy though I appreciate your kind answer. Most here just like to throw insults like a bunch of disciplined school children.
The fact of the matter is YES, they DO follow it as a way of life. People OPENLY talk about and live their lives by this credence. Step on the weak. It's all about you. Live YOUR life. Screw everyone else. Look where it has got us?
STRPENTA: Sigh. Why don't you bother to even read the question? It is so far over your head that you are just baffled. Move on please.
DON: Hey, how about you using your God-given mind and intelligence to formulate your own opinion on the facts presented instead of cutting and pasting something from the internet. The fact of the matter is that YES, I AM RIGHT. Go to any news site, read ANY magazine, ANY BOOK that touts the failed theory and you will find that it is ALL ABOUT DOMINANCE. So, we developed morals now because we all of a sudden realize its beneficial? FAIL. You failed and your a sad and pathetic individual for even attempting to answer this question that is so far above your head.
Go take a nap now k hun?
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
In essence, "survival of the fittest" is not really a moral code, but rather a system where one must fight to stay healthy to further his existence. The evolutionists do not think that we were created by God, and so there was no Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve learned the penalty of sin and disobedience. They believe that we were "evolved" and that homo sapiens have continued in their quest to procreate, and in doing so, a moral code was formed to ensure this.
Most scholars believe that organized religion began as a way to keep people from living a totally chaotic life with no rules. The laws of our country were founded on these beliefs, and society gradually evolved into making laws to prevent murder, thievery, rape, etc. so that we could co-exist in a somewhat harmonic world. Without religion and/or social mores, life would be impossible.
No matter what one believes, more wars and more lives have been lost over religion than other any reason. It was this way long before the days of Jesus Christ, or the more politically correct "BCE" because no one doubts that He did exist, whatever the circumstances of His birth. But obviously, there are nations whose citizens (and I use that word lightly) believe that their's is the only "true religion" and they bomb and kill innocent people in their efforts to proselytize. Is this making a better society? And, if so, what kind of society is that?
Wow, this is really a question that has no answer either, does it? Every argument one makes seems somewhat trivial.............
- 1 decade ago
I think you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone who follows evolution as a religion. "Survival of the fittest" isn't really a philosophy as much as a circumstance of evolution. When applied to modern terms, "survival of the fittest" could mean going to college, getting an education or job training. The more "fit" you are, the better job you can get, thus increasing your own means to survive. Capitalism is a great example of the modern day "survival of the fittest." Does that mean our society is less moral because we are capitalist? It's possible, but I'd avoid making that generalization as there are obvious benefits to a "survival of the fittest" system.
In the end, it is human nature to look out for oneself. It's the nature of the universe that those who are stronger, smarter or who adapt better succeed in life. Without this, animals would not evolve to become better. Likewise, in modern day times, people would not strive to become the best, to succeed or reach their goals. Would we have the comforts we have today if these people had not tried to be the best?
Additionally, morals change from person to person. A person of one religion might have completely different morals than a person of another. And to say that no one follows a moral code whatsoever is a bit of an overstatement. What I think you mean is that people do not follow YOUR moral code, which might be different than there's. Everyone has morals.
- strpentaLv 71 decade ago
Sigh. According to reality, humans are herd animals, like elephants and horses. We have more evolved brains so we come up with all these religious ideas but do you recall elephants or horses killing each other? Our basic morals come from natural instinct. The Golden Rule (treat others as you want to be treatd) has been found in ancient Hindu and Confuscious texts before the introduction of Christianity. Have you not heard of how elephants will mourn the death of one of their own?
Btw, the Black Plague is a perfect example of 'survival of the fittest'. Most who caught the disease died, regardless of their faith, but a few caught the virus, suffered but went on to live. That's 'survival of the fittest'. You, and many others seem to misunderstand that. Hitler did too. He thought it referred to his desire to make everyone a certain way. No one survives gun shot wounds. How long a person survives starvation varies but everyone will succumb to it eventually.
Evolution is a fact. If you have real questions about it, ask in the biology section or ANY practicing Dr.
Edit: Far over my head? I obviously read the question...evolution is a reality, not a religion, just b/c you don't like the answer, don't pretend to try and belittle my reading comprehension. It just makes you look even dumber and highlights the fact that you can't admit when a better argument has been presented.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
People who accept the theory of evolution do not live by the creed "survival of the fittest". Actually, Charles Darwin did not make up that term and he actually disliked the term. That is just the way nature works. Morality itself is a human made concept. With out evolution, man would not be intelligent as we are and morality would not exist in the context that it is now. Survival is about just getting by, not manipulation. Manipulation is also an evolved concept. Survival is a basic instinct sort of thing so they are actually not related in any way.Source(s): I AM AN ATHEIST!!!!
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
Evolution doesn't cause morality. Neither does religion for most parts. Its society and the people in it that decides, but our thoughts on whats right and whats wrong are constantly changing. Like how slavery was perfectly okay 200 years ago, and burning witches 500 years ago. We do follow survival of the fittest, just not in a manner that works in the wild. Who will go to university? an A student or a C student?
- rottLv 44 years ago
it seems that this husband has a situation that he desires help with. he's stealing money and pawning earrings to pay for some thing, some type of habit i'm guessing. till the habit has been addressed, the different habit will proceed to be. possibly the spouse might want to ask the husband to bypass to counseling including her as well to telling the husband that he desires to envision into rehab. If the husband isn't keen to address his very glaring complications, then per chance the spouse and different kinfolk might want to organize an intervention by ability of a pro. If the husband nonetheless refuses help, then the spouse ought to get out of the marriage.
- Irv SLv 71 decade ago
That 'morality' you speak of partly evolved along with primates as a survival trait,
and partly with societies as it developed in their own 'competitive evolution'.
It didn't start with humanity. You can see it in operation far down the evolutionary ladder.
(Some recent work shows that birds exchange, and keep track of, 'support' favors.)
There's a benefit to an individual to live in a mutually supporting group.
There are also benefits in occasionally 'breaking the rules', and penalties for the same.
Some behaviors do seem to be 'hard wired'.
(Normal individuals shrink from harming others unnecessarily.)
Some are 'matters of choice', and the lines between the two are not always clear.
Don't expect any simple answers to this one.
- 1 decade ago
A greater sense of smell (evolutionary adaptation) gives you a better sense when to tell your friend he needs to shower (moral adaptation - Yes, it is morally correct to tell your friend they have something in their teeth or need a shower than it is to let them walk around unknowingly). This in turn, lets your friend hook you up with his sister because he now trusts you and you propagate the species.
Actually, everywhere you look, even in tribes with no words in their language for war, murder, etc. you will see everyone follows a moral code of some sort, just because it is different than others, doesn't imply it is non-existant.
Is this what you meant?
I believe you are posing an apple vs. orange situation here?
- 1 decade ago
survival of the fittest is the province of what we consider the "less sentient" (THERE'S and oxymoron for ya) animals of the world (humans are animals) can debased activities ever stop? not unless we can truly transcend, not just repress our animal instinct.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Don't really understand what you're asking....