Social Darwinism is a just theory

Morality Pro stated in his opening definitions that the resolution refers to Social Darwinism (SD) as being "Well-grounded, based on what is morally right or fair." I suggested in my acceptance that Pro might like to consider laying out some kind of moral framework by which he intends to judge the fairness, rightness and justness of this economic philosophy, but he doesn't seem to have done so. If he really doesn't want to get specific then I guess that's okay, but it would be extremely helpful to know under what kind of normative or applied ethical system Pro considers SD to be just, whether utilitarian, consequentialist, deontological or whatever. In the meantime, I am forced to assume that his moral values are implicit in his arguments, and by extension treat his arguments as moral assertions where appropriate. Success Pro: "If you increase taxes for richer citizens to help people with lower-income, you are essentially punishing hard-working, intelligent people" This seems to be an assumption that the rich are inherently superior to the poor right off the bat. The implications are that hard work and intelligence are the best moral criteria for judging a person's worth, and that money is the best indicator of these attributes. While I agree that a good work ethic is generally a positive moral attribute, I think there are more important characteristics, such as compassion, consideration for others, loyalty etc. I don't really consider intelligence an indicator of morality at all. In any case, does Pro really believe that richer people are automatically more hard-working and more intelligent than poorer people? I can't legitimately deny that some people have achieved vast wealth by means of hard work, ability, and good moral values or that some poor people may be lazy and make choices that appear stupid. Similarly, my opponent can't legitimately deny that many people have achieved vast wealth either through inheritance that they themselves did nothing to earn (Paris Hilton, the British royal family etc.), or through the ruthless extortion or destruction of others (gangsters, dictators etc), and that many intelligent hard-working people of good moral character die poor. Pro: "Taking something without paying is stealing." Nonsense. If a man comes up to me in the street and offers me £100, am I a thief if I accept it? Is a child whose only possessions are gifts from his family a thief? Of course not. Taking something without paying is not necessarily stealing; stealing is taking something without consent, very different. Pro: "Welfare programs involve low-income people using food stamps to buy things without paying." People who use food stamps ARE paying, they are just paying with food stamps rather than general currency. Shops are more than happy to exchange food for food stamps. Consent is given, so this is in no way theft. The rest of this syllogism clearly falls down when the first two steps are demolished. Higher taxes and socialism Pro seems to focus on the burden of high taxes on the middle classes but there is no need for a tax system that distinguishes on the basis of need to place a significant burden on the middle classes at all. Consider the negative income tax system advocated by moderate conservatives like Richard Nixon [1], and even hardcore libertarians like Milton Freidman [2]. This involves top ups for those on low incomes, no tax or benefit for those in the middle range and only taxing the highest group of earners. Even if this isn't a tax system that I personally advocate, it is a good example of a fiscal policy that distinguishes on the basis of need and doesn't burden the middle class. Social Darwinism won't benefit the middle class at all. In a ruthless survival of the fittest society, it is only the top dogs who will really benefit. It makes more sense for the elite predator to go for the prey that has something of value, rather than the prey that has nothing. The suggestion that the middle class would end up on welfare without Social Darwinism seems unfounded in my opponent's case and un-evidenced in the real world. The motivation experiment Pro describes is interesting but does little to support his case for SD. We must consider that this is an entirely anecdotal account (sourced from a journal promoting Reaganism) of an un-controlled "experiment" conducted by an unsupervised teenager on his classmates. To award it the same authority as a credible scientific study would be absurd. It is also important here to keep in mind the difference between productivity and mere activity. In an individual competitive sporting activity like push-ups, obviously appealing to competitors on an individual level is likely to yield good results, but what about team games? Would a football (soccer) team of mixed ability players really get the best results if players were only paid for the goals they scored themselves? Of course not, you'd achieve far better results paying them all for the performance of the whole team. Otherwise everyone would hog the ball, goal hang and move out of their defensive positions while the team as a whole got pummelled. Push-ups are not a productive activity, and it's pretty clear that in any truly productive activity, cooperation is far more efficient and effective than competition when it comes to maximising results. Ten men working together are certainly going to be able to make ten machines faster than ten men working alone, through basic division of labour based on individual expertise. It's also important that we bust the myth that more competitive people are more able and achieve more recognition than the less competitive. Robert Helmriech's early studies surprised him by finding that less competitive professionals (including scientists, pilots and business men) achieved more and were more respected by their peers than those who scored higher on personality tests for competitiveness [3] Pro: "If everyone is put on the exact same level, a gigantic amount of consumerism is destroyed" Straw man, social policies that differentiate based on need in no way entail putting everyone on the "same level". Billionaires I'm postponing my rebuttal to this till next round as I'm nearly out of characters and although I think I've already made several strong arguments within my rebuttals above, I want to make a quick case of my own. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1. SD ideals of dog-eat-dog are often justified on naturalistic moral terms. This fallacious appeal to nature fails not only because it totally rejects civilisation and all that makes us human, but because successful animal groups invariably cooperate more than they compete. SD is hence a misnomer since evolution teaches us that cooperation is generally more efficient than competition. 2. Human groups of all kinds also operate more effectively when they cooperate [4]. There is nothing fair or moral about competition for its own sake, or for the sake of power and vanity. 3. I'd like to source the liberal rant "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own" someone posted on DDO recently and ask if my opponent has any response to it in terms of Social Darwinism [5] Thanks Sketchy, apologies for intermittent verbosity and abruptness. [1] http://millercenter.org... [2] http://www.nytimes.com... [3] http://www.google.co.uk... [4] http://www.charleswarner.us... [5] http://i201.photobucket.com...