[dalke]

Ahh, yes, "nature red in tooth and claw" and all that.

Social Darwinism went out of fashion about 60 years ago. In part because its philosophical underpinnings had little to do with Darwin or evolution.

For example, an alternate view is that taxes are part of kin selection, in that those people who pay more taxes end up with a social system which is better at raising successful children who continue that culture and practice.

[rayiner]

Its not social Darwinism, which is a wholly distinct set of beliefs. Its actual Darwinism, or the recognition of the fact that in the state of nature killing is morally neutral and arguably virtuous (e.g. being an apex predator).

[dalke]

Social Darwinism is a misreading of Darwinism to draw the conclusion you just stated, as applied to interactions within the human species.

For example, "murder" is nearly always defined within the context of human-human interactions, but "apex predator" is usually thought of on the species level, as in "humans are apex predators" not "David Hasselhoff is an apex predator." It's disingenuous for you to change contexts like that.

Darwin discussed the idea of kin selection, and how it applies to sterile honey bees. Why should a sterile bee support the group when it passes on (in modern terms) none of its own genes to its children?

Under your thesis, why don't those bees take the 'virtuous' route and attack the other bees, eat the honey, and otherwise destroy the colony? What's in it for them to not do that?

I am not so reductionist as to say that human actions can be mapped directly to kin selection, but I think it's an important factor. We also have cultural biases which have an influential effect. It's generally easier to have a civilization where you aren't worried all the time that people might murder you or your family, so energy that might otherwise go into protection and defense can be used for other things.

If you disregard the reasons for why a killing might not good for an organism, then you disregard a vital understanding of Darwinism.

[rayiner]

No, social Darwinism is the misapplication of Darwinism to societies. But in not talking about interactions in the state of nature. And you're right, killing isn't always the most efficient way to go, buy when it is we don't call it murder, we call it advantageous behavior. And as humans, we project respect onto apex predators, who have adopted an evolutionary route of expensive killing, not honeybees.

[dalke]

I don't accept your statement "we project respect onto apex predators."

We tend to "project respect" onto animals that could kill us, certainly, and some apex predators fall into that category. But some apex predators do not, and other non-predators do, and my observation is that size and danger to us are more important to our sense of respect than for the species being an apex predator.

Electric eels, largemouth bass, and loggerhead sea turtles[1] are apex predators, within their respective environments. Do we respect as much as we do polar bears? No, we respect them less. Do we respect them as much as we do a rhinoceros? Again, no, despite rhinos not being a predator.

We respect horses, elephants, and rhinos, which are herbivorous and definitely not a predator, apex or otherwise. How is our respect for these large and potentially dangerous animals any fundamentally different than for an apex predator? I certainly place a rhino higher than electric eels on my list of animals to stay far away from. I get no sense that there are different categories of respect based specifically on being an apex predator.

Gorillas are mostly herbivorous but sometimes eat meat, and adult gorillas have no natural predators - are they apex predators, and do we respect them for their 'expensive kills'? No.

We certainly respect the Andean Condor, that being a national symbol of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. Adults have no natural predators, but it's primarily a scavenger and not a predator. Your thesis, however, is that our respect for the condor is fundamentally different (and lesser?) than that of the bald eagle. I don't agree. Can you elaborate?

Nor do I accept your use of the term "advantageous behavior." You focus on its use for killing, but advantageous behavior also applies to vultures scavenging from a carcass, for squirrels eating seeds, for dung beetles which consume feces, and for the phototropic effect in plants.

That is, you correctly said that 'in the state of nature killing is morally neutral'. My complaint is that the better statement is 'in the state of nature everything is morally neutral.' Focusing on the narrow topic of killing reveals more your own fascination for that one issue than anything else.

[1] Loggerhead turtles are an apex predator in Florida Bay http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/ocd/sferpm/fy02/Schroeder02_abstrac...

[mistercow]

In nature there is no "morally neutral" or "virtuous". Morality is a social construct.

Advantageous? Yes. Virtuous? Nature stares at you, blinking.

[rayiner]

I agree with morality being a social construct. But to the extent that we project onto nature as humans, we find virtuous the efficient killers. We respect eagles and lions. And arguably engaging in the most advantageous behavior is virtuous in a way, in the broadest sense of the term.