If evolution operates on Survival of the fittest, whats wrong with the Stronger killing the weaker?

Question

Why is it bad for us to say, put to sleep mentally challenged people out of the human gene pool?

Answer 1

The whole "survival of the fittest" thing works between species. Support of weaker members of your own species has its own utility, and is apparently an overall plus for species survival.

Philosophically, you're just advocating "Might makes Right."

So,if some thug with a gun finds you in an alley somewhere, anything he believes is right? Right?

Answer 2

Because we are not animals. It is immoral to take another life. Civilized people care for their weaker members. Everyone has something to offer.

Answer 3

Well we have evolved to such an extent that we are now able to offer 'humanity' to those less strong than ourselves. I expect back in the 'olden days' the weak were left to die if they couldnt contribute to the hunting of teh gathering for the group.

We live in the best of times with more leisure than ever before. We can afford to be indulgent and act with compassion. YOu don't need to be religious to have a conscience.

Frankly I strongly object to the previous poster who described me as a morally bankrupt animal. I have ethics, I have principles, I am kind, and loyal, compassionate and caring. I find it repugnant that christians think they have a monopoly on those virtues

Answer 4

It's not bad, but it's not human either. We can define ourselves as we wish, and we should not define ourselves as animals.

Answer 5

Survival of the fittest only relates to anything below humans.  We are too knowledgeable to let anything slow down our progress now.  If we as humans think we can do something we will try to prove it.  If somebody has a mental disability then we as humans will try to fix it.  In order to fix it we need them to stay alive.

Answer 6

You have taken the next logical step from the theory/philosophy of evolution into eugenics--that is just the sort of thing Hitler was going for with his genocide of Jews and other "weaker" groups.

Congratulations, you are making my point for me of one reason why teaching evolution in schools exclusively with no counterpoint of creation is dangerous.

Without a moral and ethical component, humans sink to nothing more than animals.  But if we do have a soul and were created for a purpose, then the bar is raised and we must be accountable for our own actions and also must take collective responsibility for all of humanity (those weaker than ourselves.)

It is a basic difference in worldview and mindset--either there are absolutes as far as right and wrong or everything is relative.  In which case, you'd best look out because someone else is likely to consider you weaker or worth less than they are!

Answer 7

A lot of people don't believe in evolution, and those who do don't see how killing off "weaker" humans could help us.

Answer 8

Survival of the fittest depends on nature to decide who is the "fittest". Maybe the mentally challenged people are more fit. I bet they are happier and have better emotional intelligence than what you consider to be the stronger person. The "fittest" means that you get more of your genes into the next generation by having more offspring.

Answer 9

Well, most mentally challenged people never reproduce, for one thing.

I'm assuming you're talking about the severely handicapped, not just your average run-of-the-mill stupid guy.

If we started killing people we'd have to draw a line as to who we could kill, and there would be all kinds of fuss as to who was on what side of that line.

Then we'd have to decide how to kill them. Take Terry Schaivo, I would say it would be okay to kill a vegetable because to let her live is a bit mean. But removing her feeding tube? Murderers get a less painful death than that!

Some people think it's wrong, the same way that some people believe that killing an unwanted, parasitic clump of cells is wrong, simply because it will be human, someday.

We have a HUGE ego revolving around being human.

Answer 10

nothing I agree fullly but if we killed all the stupid people who would do all the work. I say we should enslave the amish why we are at it

Answer 11

Well all the answers i hear is because humans have feelings but i wonder how Evolution explains the origins of feelings. If we evolved from bacteria and the we evolved by random mutations how did feelings arise

Answer 12

Evolution is not a moral principle. It is a biological theory that explains biodiversity by examining changes in allele populations over time.

In terms of accuracy, "Survival of the fittest" was one of the worst slogans ever given to the theory. And, in terms of literalism, "stronger" is not always "more fit."

Answer 13

Because we have evolved to the point where we have compassion and concern for others. Human survival isn't one person but a group of people. Mentally challenged people might also have other gifts to offer such as physical strength or a loving nature.

Answer 14

Survival of the fittest is the observation that organisms that better suit their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce.  It isn't an instruction to kill things.  

It's called natural selection because it's a natural process.  Using it as a justification for killing certain members of a population is like using gravity to justify throwing things to the ground.

Answer 15

I hope you won't mind when your theory is put into practice and they come kicking down your door.

Answer 16

Or the dumber killing the smarter, for that matter.

Society cannot work well these days with that philosophy.

Answer 17

Well, I wouldn't want to go to sleep in the presence of someone stronger than me.

Answer 18

Survival of the fittest is a bit different from oppression of the weakest. The former will work itself out, the second requires much unnecessary work.

You see, to expend excessive energy "cleaning out" the surplus population, we would be wasting many of the same resources we already waste by pretending they are our equals (e.g. Special Education).

To really level the playing field, all we have to do is remove federal support for programs benefiting social/physical/mental minorities. Without additional aid to maintain a quality of life the "undesirables" would simply starve out of existence. It's as easy as that!

(Note: some sarcasm applies)

Answer 19

Because they are human beings, that's why.

Answer 20

"Survival of the fittest"to my mind a very limited view. I believe a more correct principle would be "All things struggle to survive".

Fitness is not something inborn in the organism itself, but the way the organism interacts with its environment.

If in a Christian community one began slaughtering the neighbors for supposed weaknesses, I believe you would quickly be found-unfit.

Answer 21

It's unnecessary in our society. We're not so desperate for food etc. that we need to eliminate the competition.

Answer 22

Wouldn't sterilizing them be less murderous?

Besides, evolution is about the survival of the FIT, NOT the fittEST.  And people, like me, who might not survive in a competition based solely on physical prowess still have much to offer humanity in other respects.

Answer 23

Good question.

Personally, I believe that as a species who have evolved the ability for rational sentient thought, we have now become a 'step above' the primitive kill-or-be-killed status of non-sentient creatures.  

In the wild, say a pack of zebras for instance, one malformed zebra with a stubby leg could get their herd killed if they try to assist the wounded one.  Easy prey.

Humans, however, don't have to fear being eaten by helping the less fortunate.  Since we're playing by a different set of rules, the base rationale behind 'survival of the fittest' seems unapplicable to mankind.