To put it in context, here is what I said:
Indeed, Rand's epistomology of Reason (not to mention her own novels) would suggest to us that the real "absolute" is closer to Social Darwinism than anything else. Yet I'm pretty certain that Rand considered much of Social Darwinism to be quite evil.
Looking again at Mr. Webster:
social Darwinism an extension of Darwinism to social phenomena; specifically : a theory in sociology: sociocultural advance is the product of intergroup conflict and competition and the socially elite classes (as those possessing wealth and power) possess biological superiority in the struggle for existence
The theory of evolution is based on observation of Objective Reality, and the theory places us squarely in the evolutionary chain. The basic tenet of the Darwin's theory is one of "improvement through survival" and the tenets of Social Darwinism (as defined above) are an obvious and logically consistent extension of the theory of evolution.
Up to this point, Rand's philosophy actually agrees with Social Darwinism. Where the two part ways with is this: reason applied to evolution suggests that the ultimate measure of "good," is the advancement of the species, and that the individual is merely a means to humanity's end. If we apply Rand's first two premises -- which can and do lead us to Social Darwinism -- we can logically conclude that in order for a person to be good, he should apply his reason (a product of evolution and our mark of "improvement") toward support of the "improved" among us, and the suppression of those who are "backwards."
Rand tries to wriggle out of this by saying that we shouldn't sacrifice others to ourselves. But reason, drawing from what we can observe from evolution, suggests that this is precisely what we should do, if and when it suits the needs of "the species."
At this point it's appropriate to highlight that Ayn Rand's novels come dangerously close to advocating Social Darwinism -- her heroes are Moral Giants, whose Superior Reason and Ability makes it right and proper that others should do as they say. (Whittaker Chambers uncovers Rand's unacknowledged debt to Nietzsche in his famous review of Atlas Shrugged.)
The thin wall protecting Rand's philosophy from Social Darwinism is that unaccountable rule that we "can't sacrifice others for our ends." In order for it to stand, requires us to acknowledge that humans have "intrinsic moral worth," the source of which is not something that Rand's philosophy can uncover.
Aha! "Social darwinism" has finally hit a dictionary and it's just what I thought it would be -- another mad-dog-attack name against Objectivist politics -- "social Darwinism" means anti-Capitalism.
You were right about that in post 73. Rand, being all for Capitalism, would detest social darwinism. .
But that calls up another of your post 73 statements ...
Rand's epistomology (sic) of Reason (not to mention her own novels) would suggest to us that the real "absolute" is closer to Social Darwinism than anything else
... for question.
What does that statement mean? What "absolute" are you talking about?
Are you not hiding behind ... meaningless ambiguities ... in most eveything you write?