Thursday, October 07, 2004

Naturalism, flu vaccines, and the survival of the fittest...

Per FoxNews, Parents Mull Flu-Shot Options,
The news that British regulators have shut down a major flu-shot supplier carries particular concern in Colorado, which was the epicenter of last year's flu season with 12,885 reported cases and the deaths of 12 children. With 46 million doses now unavailable, the government says the 54 million flu shots left from a rival firm should be reserved for youngsters ages 6-23 months, people 65 or older, anyone living with babies younger than 6 months and others in high-risk groups.
How intriguing. The unmovable foundation of the Naturalistic Worldview is that, namely, nature is all there is. Couched within this worldview is the Darwinistic methodology which extols the concept of survival of the fittest as the driving force which maintains the survival of the species. Such a survival depends on natural selection weeding out the weak, feeble, and ill-equipped members of the species. Within the naturalistic framework such action is not seen as wrong – it just is. Yet now we see a species that puts forth a special effort to counteract the process of natural selection. Betraying the underlying principle of survival of the fittest, we have humans advocating delivering potentially life saving flu vaccines not to the healthiest individuals in society, but to the weakest. Why? Virtually any argument put forth to justify the altruism inherent in saving the weak will ultimately rely on a commonly understood moral judgment. Any argument put forth will reduce down to concluding that one course of action is better than another. Exactly.

5 comments:

Paul said...

Actually any argument will reduce down to "North American society finds one course of action to be better than another"

Rusty said...

C'mon Paul, all the people outside of North America are human beings as well...

Paul said...

Very true, but not part of the argument. In some countries such measures would be taken first to protect the most 'important' people (oddly enough, usually politicians). There's a parallel even in the US - the nuclear bunkers available weren't to protect the weak, they were to protect the strong; only once we've secured the future of the species do we worry about protecting the weak at a societal level.

Rusty said...

Paul,

The point of my post was two-fold: 1) to illustrate how humans willingly oppose natural selection and, 2) to posit that any justification / rationalization for such action reduces to an understanding of right and wrong.

Paul said...

1) Agreed - it's one of the things that marks us out, we're intelligent enough to divert the influence of pretty much anything.
2) Also true - the culture decides what is right or wrong, and acts accordingly.