Now, I ask - why would a person be inclined to hold this belief? I can understand being against our society - but if survival of the fittest was our only rule, then humanity would be very different. And not necessarily for the better.
-------
If survival of the fittest was the only governing rule of man, then none of the modern human innovations would be present, or used. Why? Well, it's survival of the fittest - no companies, materials, anything. Therefore, no hospitals (meaning the deaths from illnesses would be left almost completely to chance, and I don't need to explain what a blow that would be to humanity on it's own.) would have ever been built. No houses - no companies, right? It's survival of the fittest. Also, many people would die at birth from health complications. No modern technology would be available. At all.
To back up my statement that there would be no companies, simply think about this: wouldn't the formation of companies aid others? Yes. Food companies, for example, would package and sell food to people. Survival of the fittest = no food companies, because they are aiding people.
Hospitals are companies. No hospitals. Hospitals, of course, aid people.
In fact, there would be NO ALTRUISM AT ALL. Because survival of the fittest is just that - survival of the fittest, no-one else. And altruism introduces the possibility of survival of those who are not fit - which contradicts that cardinal rule, survival of the fittest.
Logically, the rule is hit-and-miss. Fittest would be = to physical fitness, correct? What about other gifts besides athletics? Intellect? Artistry? None of those would matter under that rule. Humanity would be back at square one, and would stay there. . .forever, as long as it is consistently followed.
----------
So, I ask, what could the reasoning for holding this view, that survival of the fittest should be the law that governs man? Is it valid reasoning? And please provide a good reason, not just that you want to rebel against the establishment, man! Give a good, supportable, logically sound reason.
that's why I do it - because it makes me feel good
The honest man's answer.
---
I'm told by my superiors never to answer a question with another question but since I'm not the student here, I also happen to know that answering questions with questions is a teaching device.
For what kind of answer would you ask why? Survival of the fittest is interpreted as either a model of how things are, and a moral guideline on the way things should be. I'd like to draw your attention to this, because I happen to think it's more accurate as the former.
I say this because when we discuss ethics and make laws, we shape the sentiments on how people behave and view other people- in a way I acknowledge that vox populi holds the biggest sway and always will. The arena for survival changes. As you can see, the thoughts involved in making laws and the process itself are quite different. Hence I do not believe that "survival of the fittest" is something that should be followed, so much as something that just is, because what "fittest" is defined as changes over time.
...to entertain the tangential thought, I'll demonstrate with another example:
Hiddendistance said "because it makes me feel good." I think this ultimately is the true motive behind all actions, because somewhere, somehow we've deemed it to be good in some way.
However I wouldn't say this is the way it should be- the moral stance that asserts this is called "hedonism" and works out quite differently!
The government, economics, hospitals, companies, anything else that the common man needs is all to meet the needs of those at the top: the directors of hospitals, the leaders of the Three Branches of Government, the CEOs of any company -- because they mass anything and everything that people need that they are skilled at to harness a mass amount of funds for their survival and for their survival only -- those that help the leaders get their share but not the total amount.
Where have we learned this before? A lion attacks a zebra and kills it. The strongest lion gets to eat it first, and the other weaker lions have to wait their turns to get their share of the spoils. So all those guys at the top, the "big cheeses" for example. They are the ones surviving the best, up to the point that they don't have a care in the world, so long as their "service" is still in need of use from the common man.
So what does that make us, the common man of nature? We don't survive well, but we get by, with the funds that we have right now. Those that make more money than others are fitter than him/her, because he is able to afford more resources, whether they are essential to survival or not. Even lower are those that didn't try to get a good education and couldn't successfully get a meritable occupation, or those that are living in poverty. Even lower still, those that didn't do a single shred of education, or that their families couldn't afford it and does not and could not get a job at all, or those that we call the homeless, or those that are referred to as moochers. What are they? They are scavengers, waiting until the lions devour the main pieces of the zebra to grab the remaining scraps of meat that are still remaining. A little blunt perhaps, but these guys are the lowest branches of the fittest group. If they are not able to get any funds for their survival, they die, or struggle to survive. There you have it.
