 |
| |
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Albert Speer
shut up mrfun... racism has nothing to do with social darwinism. didn't me and Boris already disprove this notion? do you intake any information? |
I'll take Social Darwinism and imperial notions of race for ten, Albert:
"Equally abundant evidence exists that the prevalence of theft is similarly associated with a predominance of the loyalty-producing faculty. Books of travels give proof that amongst uncivilized races pilfering and the irresponsible power of chiefs co-exist. The same association of dishonesty and submissiveness is found amongst more advanced peoples. It is so with the Hindoos, with the Cinghalese, and with the inhabitants of Madagascar. The piracy of the Malays, and of the Chinese, and the long-continued predatory habits of the Arab races, both on land and sea, exist in conjunction with obedience to despotic rule. "One quality," says Kohl, "which the Lettes show, with all enslaved tribes, is a great disposition to thieving." The Russians, to whom worship of their emperor is a needful luxury, confess openly that they are cheats, and laugh over the confession. The Poles, whose servile salutation is, "I throw myself under your feet," and amongst whom nobles are cringed to by the Jews and citizens, and these again by the people, are certainly not noted for probity. TURNING TO THE SUPERIOR RACES, we find that they, too, have passed through phases in which this same relationship of characteristics was strongly marked. Thus, the times when fealty of serfs to feudal barons was strongest, were times of universal rapine. "In Germany a very large proportion of the rural nobility lived by robbery;" their castles being built with a special view to this occupation, and that even by ecclesiastics1 Burghers were fleeced, towns were now and then sacked, and Jews were tortured for their money. Kings were as much thieves as the rest. They laid violent hands upon the goods of their vassals, like John of England and Philip Augustus of France; they cheated their creditors by debasing the coinage; they impressed men's horses without paying for them; and they seized the goods of traders, sold them, and pocketed a large part of the proceeds. Meantime, whilst freebooters overran the land, pirates covered the sea, the Cinque Ports and St. Maloe's being the head quarters of those infesting the English Channel."
Social Statics: or, The Conditions essential to Happiness specified, and the First of them Developed. By Herbert Spencer (London: John Chapman, 1851).
You note that part where he says: 'superior races'.
He's not referring to the Kentucky Derby, or Le Mans.
In any case, although Herbert Spencer was but one enthusiastic applier of Darwinian theory to sociology, there were others who took Spencer's application and really ran with it in regards to the 'natural' superiority of one race to another.
Spencer also thought the poor and the criminal could 'breed' more poor and criminal.
Here's a breath of sanity from J.S. Mill:
'Is it not, then, a bitter satire on the mode in which opinions are formed on the most important problems of human nature and life, to find public instructors of the greatest pretensions, imputing the backwardness of Irish industry, and the want of energy of the Irish people in improving their condition, to a peculiar indolence and insouciance in the Celtic race? Of all vulgar modes of escaping from the consideration of the effect of social and moral influences on the human mind, the most vulgar is that of attributing the diversities of conduct and character to INHERENT NATURAL DIFFERENCES.'
J.S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
Kid - quote:
Berz,
Arguing with you becomes so tedious. |
Sorry.
quote:
You define everything according to libertarian context. For example, you think that every time you see the work 'right' it means natural right. |
We're talking about morality, what other "rights" are there within that context?
quote:
Only libertarians talk like that. |
Hardly, a right is a moral claim to act. The Founders, some of whom were not libertarians, recognised that even if they didn't show those rights the proper respect due to political expediency or worse. Furthermore, ~everyone understands that rights are tied to morality, i.e., they are natural, meaning we have them no matter what "government" says on the matter. That's why people all over the world resist tyrants, they understand what having the moral high ground means.
quote:
The rest of us aren't obsessed with natural rights. |
Obviously you aren't, just look at what you said to Kuci:
quote:
That's a tough one. |
 Tough only for someone who has no clue about what natural rights mean.
quote:
The problem is that Berzerker thinks that his morals are ethical, and that is ridiculous. |
Why are my morals ridiculous? That's funny coming from someone who thinks it's tough figuring out why genocide is unethical. You seem to think morality and ethics are two distinct concepts, they aren't. They're related, can you identify acts that are immoral but ethical or acts that are moral but unethical?
ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
morality - 3. The doctrines or rules of moral duties, or the duties of men in their social character; ethics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
We're talking about morality, what other "rights" are there within that context?
|
We were talking about morality yes, but then you used the word 'steal.' Now my dictionary defines stealing as something only illegal. We might have to look into it further to determine the correct meaning of the word.
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Hardly, a right is a moral claim to act. The Founders, some of whom were not libertarians, recognised that even if they didn't show those rights the proper respect due to political expediency or worse. Furthermore, ~everyone understands that rights are tied to morality, i.e., they are natural, meaning we have them no matter what "government" says on the matter. That's why people all over the world resist tyrants, they understand what having the moral high ground means.
|
The founding fathers were libertarians, right? Anyway, the concept of right originated before libertarians came onto the scene. 'Natural right' is something different from a 'right.' If it weren't no one would have to call them 'natural rights.'
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-07-2004 22:18
|