Are Social Darwinists psychopaths?

[Petrolheadia]

NOTE: I AM NOT TRYING TO INSULT ANYONE, I'M USING THE WORD "PSYCHOPATH" STRICTLY IN MEDICAL TERMS.

Social Darwinism is an ideology, according to which, in general terms, society should be based around competition and nobody should receive entitlements. Those who lose in that model should not be pitied, as they deserved their fate.

However, that lack of contempt for the worse-off is disturbing, as it eerily aligns with some of the main signs of psychopathy, namely, a lack of empathy and remorse.

This leads me to thinking that if even if Social Darwinists aren't psychopaths, they at least show they're close to it.

And what do you think? Is Social Darwinism tied to that medical condition?

[Vince Vaughn]

No, they're cynics.

[Petrolheadia]

No, they're cynics.

Cynics rather seem to have the "que sera, sera" outlook. Social Darwinists actively encourage competition.

[The Batavia]

Basically the "Only the strongest survive" mentallity, right?

[Petrolheadia]

Basically the "Only the strongest survive" mentallity, right?

Yeah.

[The Batavia]

Basically the "Only the strongest survive" mentallity, right?

Yeah.

I personally think that metallity is bullshit. Although I won't say humans are all that civilized, we're not wild animals.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

They're not psychopaths.

They're just naïve.

[Olerand]

Yes. Psychopaths lack a conscience, feel no empathy, no sympathy, no commonality with other human beings who are not themselves. Social Darwinists (including but not limited to libertarians, extremist liberals, etc.) fit that to a t.

[NewVinlandia]

And what do you think? Is Social Darwinism tied to that medical condition?

Your question is far too broad to be of much use; you need to be more specific in what you're asking. There is no way to answer yours with anything other than 'no' because there is such a wide range of beliefs and perspectives within SD, some quite reasonable, some extreme. A better q. would be 'at what point do ideas re: SD become pathological?" I could only say personally that any worldview or concept is pathological when taken to an extreme. Even altruism can be incredibly destructive to self and other when it goes too far even though it's a noble idea. For ex: when trying to support someone struggling with addiction turns into enabling. This being said, I think also that when in balance many of the principles associated with SD are absolutely vital to allow the individual and their society to achieve their maximum potential.

[Great Nepal]

No, they're merely silly who somehow believe just because it is something that happens in nature means it is something that should be replicated in societal context and an type of naturalistic fallacy.

[Farnhamia]

NOTE: I AM NOT TRYING TO INSULT ANYONE, I'M USING THE WORD "PSYCHOPATH" STRICTLY IN MEDICAL TERMS.

Social Darwinism is an ideology, according to which, in general terms, society should be based around competition and nobody should receive entitlements. Those who lose in that model should not be pitied, as they deserved their fate.

However, that lack of contempt for the worse-off is disturbing, as it eerily aligns with some of the main signs of psychopathy, namely, a lack of empathy and remorse.

This leads me to thinking that if even if Social Darwinists aren't psychopaths, they at least show they're close to it.

And what do you think? Is Social Darwinism tied to that medical condition?

First, tread very, very carefully here. Second, I'm sure you mean "lack of empathy" and not "lack of contempt."

[Hydesland]

More or less, yes.

[Nulla Bellum]

Social Creationists are worse.

[Genivaria]

No they are just extremely ignorant on how evolution actually works.
What they are trying to apply to society is completely ass backwards in biology, if anything if you were to try to somehow apply evolution to society then it would be in trying to make your society as adaptive to change as possible, not strict, homogeneous, and unchanging.

[UniversalCommons]

No, they are just misguided. The strongest don't necessarily survive, the most adaptable and fecund do. Strength is not always an adaptive trait.

[Genivaria]

No, they are just misguided. The strongest don't necessarily survive, the most adaptable and fecund do. Strength is not always an adaptive trait.

Precisely.

[Genivaria]

Social Creationists are worse.

That's not a term.

[Nocturnalis]

No, not psychopathic at all. Why should those unable to adapt and survive be allowed to survive off the work of those better adapted?

Social Darwinists do have empathy and remorse, as most humans do. They're just folks who'd rather not be forced to sustain those who cannot sustain themselves. Belief in Social Darwinism is not a sign of psychopathy. (Psychopaths being more drawn to Social Darwinism, however, would be a more interesting and debatable topic).

No, they are just misguided. The strongest don't necessarily survive, the most adaptable and fecund do.

They are not misguided, because that is literally what "survival of the fittest" means, as coined first by Herbert Spencer in Principles of Biology and acknowledged by Darwin in the fifth edition of The Origin - the species better suited to the local environment (read: the species better able to adapt to changing conditions) survives or, as it turns out, people better suited to a local environment thrive while those that aren't die out.

That is, of course, unless people are ridiculous enough to allow the unfit thrive by sustaining their existence and reproduction, which is exactly why Social Darwinists oppose welfare and such things: fit populations are artificially weighed down to support the existence of populations that would normally die off.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

As President Bartlet told us, social Darwinism is not an ideology, but a force of nature. Social Darwinism frightens people because it suggests that compassion for the poor is often not actually very compassionate or effective, not because it recognises welfarism as compassion and says we should disregard it anyway.

[Liberated Territories]

I can't think of anyone who realistically supports "social darwinism." It is more like a left liberal scare term for free market capitalism.

[Socialist Tera]

No, they are just misguided. The strongest don't necessarily survive, the most adaptable and fecund do.

They are not misguided, because that is literally what "survival of the fittest" means, as coined first by Herbert Spencer in Principles of Biology and acknowledged by Darwin in the fifth edition of The Origin - the species better suited to the local environment (read: the species better able to adapt to changing conditions) survives or, as it turns out, people better suited to a local environment thrive while those that aren't die out.

That is, of course, unless people are ridiculous enough to allow the unfit thrive by sustaining their existence and reproduction, which is exactly why Social Darwinists oppose welfare and such things: fit populations are artificially weighed down to support the existence of populations that would normally die off.

Survival of the fittest is not usually the fastest or the strongest, it's the most lucky to adapt to an environment. If there was an event where it favoured weaker or less strong but more intelligent minds, the stronger would die off. A big problem is the group that we assume that strong means burly strong people not people able to come up with genius ideas of survival. Social Darwinism falls flat due to the concept that the people calling for it's introduction may not be the most ideals candidates. Falling from the traditional state of atheism to Neo-Atheism.

[Nulla Bellum]

Social Creationists are worse.

That's not a term.

I know. Humourless leftists prefer to call it social engineering to give it that intelligent design central planning touch.

[Genivaria]

That's not a term.

I know. Humourless leftists prefer to call it social engineering to give it that intelligent design central planning touch.

^Meaningless word salad.

[Empire of Narnia]

Perhaps, but Darwinism is a lie that has been used to justify many terrible things.

[Vegaslovakia]

Psychopath, although meaning something very specific, does not fit as a 'psychiatric term' as such.
If you want to achieve some point of the world being a better place because of just that, without ulterior motives, you're not a psychopath. Many terrorists are called psychopaths, but it has nothing to do with what somebody actually does, it's just that they only care about themselves. To say that they're emotionless would be inaccurate; they desire to feel joy, and desire in itself is an emotional state. Hell, any kind of consciousness is an emotional state, really, but what psychopaths lack is remorse for their actions and any sympathy whatsoever. They can empathize if you mean 'understand' by that, but they don't have any sort of drive that would make them feel considerate about others if there wasn't already any ulterior motive for them to do so.

tl;dr The short answer would be no because some may think that the weak dying will be beneficial to everyone collectively, but there are also SDs who are psychopaths and I'm not saying that anyone who isn't a psychopath isn't evil whatsoever.