Survival of the fittest implies might makes right (Talk.Origins)
- Survival of the fittest implies that "might makes right" is a proper guide to behavior.
Source: Keyes, Alan, 7 July 2001. Survival of the fittest? WorldNetDaily.
Talk Origins does not actually dispute the argument, but instead avoids an answer.
(Talk Origins quotes in blue)
1. This claim exemplifies the naturalistic fallacy by arguing that the way things are implies how they ought to be. It is like saying that if someone's arm is broken, it should stay broken. But "is" does not imply "ought." Evolution is descriptive. It tells how things are, not how they should be.
Here, the answer does not actually state whether "might makes right" is how it "ought" to be or not. More importantly, though, this answer confirms that up until now "might makes right" has been the accepted behavior. Stating that it "ought" to be another way requires an argument, not just a statement of its existence (and not even that, in this case).
2. Humans, being social, improve their fitness through cooperation with other people. Even if survival of the fittest were taken as a basis for morals, it would imply treating other people well.
Humans ensure this cooperation succeeds through might - those who do not cooperate are excluded, punished, or brought into submission through might. This argument does not dispute the claim that "might makes right", but is instead an example of one "right" that is made through "might". Cooperation is enforced.
Talk Origins has here failed even to address the basic argument. Evolution is a history filled with "might makes right", and if true, then we are born out of it. We are the offspring and products of "might makes right". Talk Origins claims that we must understand our history in order properly to determine behaviour, so they should not exclude the shaping of one portion of natural history while embracing another.