View Single Post
Old 2008-05-08, 22:47   Link #63
bbduece
Ultimate Coordinator
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Francisco
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
...which honestly is a pathetic theory, and its application worse. The flaws range from the core philosophy to the procedural problems, so many that I just can't take Social Darwinism without spilling venom of my own.

First, in the core philosophy: Social Darwinism argues that "the strong would conquer the weak." Then it proceeds to provide a moral quality to this speculative statement, arguing further that "the strong conquering the weak is a good thing -- and should be the goal of governments, individuals, and society." This goes against most conceptions of justice, what are the goals of human society, the idea of human rights, the concept of governments as generally understood by most people, among other things. To take such a controversial position one must be very confident of the firmness of its position -- that, against others' ideas of justice, rights, and such, your position is the one supported by fact.

...which is frankly not so true, because:

There are many issues in the simple claim above. What is strong, what is weak? That question pretty much puts the whole thing into a relativistic angle. Different societies value different aspects of a person's attributes; and at different levels the meaning of strong and weak change with extraordinary rapidity. Is Lelouch weak or is he strong? All his classmates outran him but he alone has the intellectual mind to pursue what entails to Plans of World Conquest. Now, is Orange-kun weak or strong? He seems to have his own share of physical power, now further enhanced by insane modifications. But he is subject to mental breakdowns and manipulations and for all intents and purposes pushed out of society. Then, is Earl Lloyd strong or weak? He can't fight worth a damn, but he invents superweapons all the time. Then again, no superweapon could save him if his boss, who controls all of his superweapons, decide to get rid of him.

See where I'm going with this?

Try this mental exercise: Is the Emperor strong or weak? He is at the top of the food chain...but he is also envied and plotted against by many, many people. The obvious answer would be he's strong, right? He's the goddamn emperor after all. Now then, assume that as the story continues, Lelouch wins in the end, does that mean the strong suddenly becomes weak? What trait is it then that defines weakness? His Wakamoto voice? His outdated hairdo? His son being a cooler character than him? Or because he fails?

If you answer the last question with a yes, then consider more: What makes him fail? Because Lelouch's abilities exceed him? Are you sure? Can you measure that? Of course not, unless you're being facetious, or once again because you measure the inherent qualities by the result they produce... which would ignore a crucial factor: luck. Lelouch lucks out all the time, for every stray bullet it could've been the Death of Zero; so does that mean he's stronger because the element of chance happens to be on his side? Real life -- even anime, which isn't exactly real life -- isn't a videogame. You and I can't go and read, "John Smith has 18 strength, 13 charisma, 11 intelligence, compared to Goblin A who has 14 strength, 8 charisma, and 3 intelligence, so he's stronger." It just doesn't happen that way. Heck, even the mother of all generic RPG's, D&D, has the element of chance. Maybe John Smith rolled a 1 and got murdered by a stupid trap at level 1, while Goblin A rolled a twenty repeatedly and conquered Waterdeep, who's weak now?

It's all murky and funky, and, ignoring even the objective attempt at choosing who would define strong and weak, there's enough holes in it that I think somebody shot a whole magazine's worth of AK-47 at this ideology.

And then there's the application of this theory. Assuming that somehow all the arguments above are ignored, and you accept this idea anyway. How do you apply it? If you help the strong against the weak, well then, the so-called "weak" is actually being penalized from the level playing field isn't it? Furthermore, if you don't help, but create an atmosphere where the strong can do whatever they want, this brings to parallel another phenomenon: the rich gets richer, the poor gets poorer. Is that what you call, with absolute confidence, strong? That the model of social darwinism is working as intended? Bullshit. This ignores a vast number of factors, one crucial one would be wasted potential. Imagine if there's no C.C. and no Suzaku to save Lelouch in the series' very first episode, and then imagine the situation. Maybe that weak Lamperouge kid who got shot by the Britannian thugs has the potential to become Ruler of the World, Conqueror of the East, West, North, Women's Hearts, and Everywhere. Yet because he wasn't even given the chance, he becomes "weak," ignored, villified, pitied by the advocates of the oh-so-impressive social darwinism.

And finally, there's the history. One phrase: Godwin's Law. God's given ideal indeed, His Noodliness knows how many of the weaklings and helpless deservedly died.

P.S. There is a mention of Capitalism. I'd say this: the relationship between Capitalism and Social Darwinism has only limited parallels. First, any decent capitalist would be able to tell you: they weren't getting there only by their ability, no sir, they've been in the right place at the right time, doing the right thing. And second, unless you're one of those loony neoliberals, there's really no moral quality to Capitalism. It's an economic theory, things happen, things go this way and that, the end. Even then there are enough economists in the world who really find the Classical idea of capitalism to be terribly flawed and utopian. Social Darwinism goes much further, it equates this phenomenon, this theoretical model with human and moral qualities: first, the Winner is strong. Why? Because he wins. Yeah right. And second, the Winner is righteous, He is good. He deserves it. Why? Because he's strong...well, fuck that.

In any case, regardless of my long-winded post above, I tend to find advocates of social darwinism -- not necessarily you, mind you, I don't even know you; I'm talking about people I see and talk to in real life -- are either heavily idealistic, in a funky Radical Young Man kind of way, or extremely cynical, in a sad What Can You Do kind of way, or just having fun satirizing more coherent, acceptable in my moral compass, arguments.
I used to think like that, something along your line before, but i see a different reality now. I consider my old train of thought idealistic and carefree. Lowell1025 convey it very well, everyones thought and ideals are different, there is no one right way of thinking. To tell you the truth i prefer my old ways than what is now, but once "pandora's box" has been open it can not be undone.

Last edited by bbduece; 2008-05-08 at 23:03.
bbduece is offline   Reply With Quote