[lit-ideas] Re: The meaning of life
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:49:48 -0800 (PST)
Not to take away from W. O.'s incoming reply, only two points:
First, as I already pointed out, Darwin first used "natural selection," which
he meant to be a descriptive / explanatory, not a prescriptive / ethical
principle. Only later under the Spencerian influence he introduced the term
"the survival of the fittest" where a certain positive evaluation of those who
survive intrudes. Still, to predict that, in conditions of limited resources,
"only the fittest shall survive" does not necessarily state that in ethical
terms this ought to be so, although it may carry implications to the ethical
argument. So I guess that we are considering whether "only the fittest ought to
survive" could be accepted as an ethical maxim.
Second, the contradiction that is meant here is clearly the 'practical
contradiction' in Kantian terms, not the logical contradiction. Even so, I
agree with R.P. in that I don't think there would be any contradiction standing
in the way of making this a universal maxim. Consider sports: "Only the fittest
shall survive in competition" seems to function pretty well as a guiding maxim
in (at least, most) sports. What would be considered unfair or unethical in
this context would be if, because of some external interference or unequal
conditions, the fitter side were not allowed to win. (We still talk about
FIDE's intervention in the Karpow-Kasparov match, though it's not actually
clear which side benefitted from this.)
O.K.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
