Re: survival of the fittest
can you give an example of "trapping people into buy unecessary stuff" as you put it?
so please explain how someone is trapped into buying an unnecessary thing? be specific.
look at your own post
.. a person going broke because he's getting 'sucked' in by the consumer media is a moron....
Re: survival of the fittest
i dont get it. 
Re: survival of the fittest
Peace bro ajazali
Nice topic ... I had a view about 'survival of the fittest' in the past now a bit more refined ... This phrase should have two meanings ... The scientific intent of this is an observation ... That through time the things that have survived were generally fitter than their counterparts and threats ... It is a statement relating to a trend. This is always true.
Now, the secondary meaning is taken from its application ... That people seeing trends will want to advantage themselves and disadvantage others - selfishness ... This is a strategy rather than a trend, where people see what happens in nature and mimic that for their own interests ... And usually those interests are immediately serving.
So this is the thought process ... "Since survival of the fittest, and we want to survive therefore we will be fittest" ...
The Bible talks about life and death as metaphors for survival in the Hereafter and damnation in the Hereafter respectively. So the word "fittest" in that context infers how to be the best people, which leads on to morality and ethics. Since the modern world only talks about what it can see and fathom ... "fittest" is now taking a turn towards material and biological fitness, this path does not take us into the realms of morality and ethics.
What animals and nature does is there ... For us to see ... We can either be like that or unlike that ... The other fact of life and human history is that there has never been a 1000 year Reich ... No order has sustained itself for 1000 years without changing hands. Usually the downfall of nations come when they become proud and arrogant ... So current powers despite how it may seem are on their down turn. So that is the bigger picture.
In answer to people who think charity givers such as the non-religious are to b praised more than religious is totally wrong.
Principle of charity is not amount ... It is to give away an amount that you need ... Charity is linked to sacrifice. Irreligious people will never give away what they need unless it is out of true love. Also, global charity and aid given through UN and other means is a way to subdue governments of other nations. So true charity is not met ... For if they were concerned for charity they would not be concerned at all of interest ... Interest is the opposite of charity and anyone taking interest or thinks it is fair is like the opposite of a charitable person, which is not a miser ... It is worse.
Re: survival of the fittest
Thank you psyah, intersting pionts!
I shall add my comments soon.
Re: survival of the fittest
lolz, you come up with these words when you find it hard to answer my questions :)
your question can have many different interpretation because you're not specific. first you mention survival of the fittest and it's morality, then you mention how people are made to buy things they don't need, then you say you're not talking about selling products, but you still didn't describe what you meant by 'being trapped to buy unnecessary things'. none of your posts make any sense because they are not consistent with a single topic. why is it so hard to be straight forward and say what's on your mind? why should we guess what you're talking about ?
[quote]
In earlier posts, you were agreed that its customer's fault because he's getting "sucked" by consumerism. maybe you dont remember that or dont understand the simplest thing who is causing the 'customer getting 'sucked'.
[/QUOTE]
Because your post made it seem like you were talking about people buying things they don't 'need' as the fault of the manufacturer. Other posters also seemed to think that. then later on you mentioned you were not talking about people selling products to someone.
make your mind up for once. your questions have changed drastically from the first post till now, each being vague with really strange theories with no explanation.
Re: survival of the fittest
your question can have many different interpretation because you're not specific. first you mention survival of the fittest and it's morality, then you mention how people are made to buy things they don't need, then you say you're not talking about selling products, but you still didn't describe what you meant by 'being trapped to buy unnecessary things'. none of your posts make any sense because they are not consistent with a single topic. why is it so hard to be straight forward and say what's on your mind? why should we guess what you're talking about ?
Because your post made it seem like you were talking about people buying things they don't 'need' as the fault of the manufacturer. Other posters also seemed to think that. then later on you mentioned you were not talking about people selling products to someone. make your mind up for once. your questions have changed drastically from the first post till now, each being vague with really strange theories with no explanation.
Morality part was to reply to mad_scientist's post where he bring a moral argument against my question related to 'survival of the fittest' appraoch.
You, instead of replying the original question, in terms of 'yes' or 'no', started getting into other stuff.
Re: survival of the fittest
i think it's been like that forever.
ok, lets start from here...
consider the modern systems where survival of the fittest approach is advocated and practiced, can morality be compatible with those systems following survival of the fittest approach?
Re: survival of the fittest
Peace bro ajazali
Nice topic ... I had a view about 'survival of the fittest' in the past now a bit more refined ... This phrase should have two meanings ... The scientific intent of this is an observation ... That through time the things that have survived were generally fitter than their counterparts and threats ... It is a statement relating to a trend. This is always true.
Now, the secondary meaning is taken from its application ... That people seeing trends will want to advantage themselves and disadvantage others - selfishness ... This is a strategy rather than a trend, where people see what happens in nature and mimic that for their own interests ... And usually those interests are immediately serving.
So this is the thought process ... "Since survival of the fittest, and we want to survive therefore we will be fittest" ...
The Bible talks about life and death as metaphors for survival in the Hereafter and damnation in the Hereafter respectively. So the word "fittest" in that context infers how to be the best people, which leads on to morality and ethics. Since the modern world only talks about what it can see and fathom ... "fittest" is now taking a turn towards material and biological fitness, this path does not take us into the realms of morality and ethics.
What animals and nature does is there ... For us to see ... We can either be like that or unlike that ... The other fact of life and human history is that there has never been a 1000 year Reich ... No order has sustained itself for 1000 years without changing hands. Usually the downfall of nations come when they become proud and arrogant ... So current powers despite how it may seem are on their down turn. So that is the bigger picture.
In answer to people who think charity givers such as the non-religious are to b praised more than religious is totally wrong.
Principle of charity is not amount ... It is to give away an amount that you need ... Charity is linked to sacrifice. Irreligious people will never give away what they need unless it is out of true love. Also, global charity and aid given through UN and other means is a way to subdue governments of other nations. So true charity is not met ... For if they were concerned for charity they would not be concerned at all of interest ... Interest is the opposite of charity and anyone taking interest or thinks it is fair is like the opposite of a charitable person, which is not a miser ... It is worse.
Peace psyah,
agreed to most part.
Survival of the fittest as behavior is somewhat natural but, religiously we cannot even make it an excuse to survive at the cost of lives of the others.
Now, talking about attitude, not behavior, modern systems advocate this approach and it has evil and immoral implications.
Since every action in modern systems is taken in the context of 'survival of the fittest', therefore modern systems are not compatible with morality.
Re: survival of the fittest
Peace psyah, agreed to most part.
Survival of the fittest as behavior is somewhat natural but, religiously we cannot even make it an excuse to survive at the cost of lives of the others. Now, talking about attitude, not behavior, modern systems advocate this approach and it has evil and immoral implications. Since every action in modern systems is taken in the context of 'survival of the fittest', therefore modern systems are not compatible with morality.
Religiously we only compete with each to be more charitable and more pious ... Of course there is a reason why Allah (SWT) has put in us this desire to compete ... It has its bad uses and its good uses ... Survival is necessary and also innate ... But we often think wrongly that we must survive at all costs and also think that the costs of others not surviving is an allowable sacrifice ... It is so putrid and gutter to think that others should make way for us and not vice versa. If we all made way for each other while being tolerate and less protesting for our own rights then everyone will be heard and live happily ... But because we are all so selfish the only ones who are heard are the stronger ones or fitter ones.
Re: survival of the fittest
ok, lets start from here... consider the modern systems where survival of the fittest approach is advocated and practiced, can morality be compatible with those systems following survival of the fittest approach?
nothing moral or immoral about this approach in my opinion.
Re: survival of the fittest
Now explain this:
I am talking about trapping people into buy unnecessary stuff, and you are talking about innocent behavior like selling a product. are you trying to duck the point?
give me an example of this so i know what you are referring to
Re: survival of the fittest
There are hundreds of financial advisory firms in US alone that are helping debt victims. Financial products sellers trap people into debt. Immoral.
Dont you know the terms like, price wars and deceptive marketing? or are you trying to be naive?
Re: survival of the fittest
ok, lets start from here... consider the modern systems where survival of the fittest approach is advocated and practiced, can morality be compatible with those systems following survival of the fittest approach?
nothing moral or immoral about this approach in my opinion.
I think you dont want to answer as i am asking.
this is not what i asked.
My question is, is morality compatible with 'survival of the fittest approach'?
yes, or no?
Re: survival of the fittest
There are hundreds of financial advisory firms in US alone that are helping debt victims. Financial products sellers trap people into debt. Immoral.
I admit i don't know enough regarding this topic to say if it was moral or immoral. i was under the impression you were talking about unnecessary needs meaning products and services that people end up purchasing due to marketing.
So can you explain how they trapped people? I am not sure how one can be forced into debt.
Re: survival of the fittest
I admit i don't know enough regarding this topic to say if it was moral or immoral. i was under the impression you were talking about unnecessary needs meaning products and services that people end up purchasing due to marketing. So can you explain how they trapped people? I am not sure how one can be forced into debt.
That means, for you, it is ok to make people fool without being charged with accusation of forcing people into something. This is mean and immoral approach.
If people are struggling with debt, who is causing this problem? I don’t understand why you want a mathematical proof to consider their actions as immoral. Maybe you are trying to duck.
Although I have given examples in earlier posts as well but, it does not matter whether i can explain or not. The fact is people are suffering.
Re: survival of the fittest
That means, for you, it is ok to make people fool without being charged with accusation of forcing people into something. This is mean and immoral approach.
if people are lied to, then yes its immoral in my opinion.
[quote]
If people are struggling with debt, who is causing this problem? I don’t understand why you want a mathematical proof to consider their actions as immoral. Maybe you are trying to duck.
[/quote]
no i am not trying to duck, i have misunderstood your posts many times.
debt isn't always the lenders fault. shouldn't the borrower also educate themselves regarding the loan? if borrower are given false information then it's not their fault. but i would think, its considered fraud.
however i have seen instances where consumers are addicted to buy beyond their means. i am not saying the lenders are not at fault but it lies in both borrower and lender.