Reply #4: There is a sort of third option. [View All]

[SadEagle]

One can claim that one should be friendly to the 'weak' for purely Darwinist reasons: encouraging that behavior develops a more cooperative society, moving the genetic pool slowly toward a group of people that is more likely to help each other -- which means that even though most of people may not be amazingly strong, amazingly smart, since they stick together they overall have a much better chance of getting through whatever we may face... There is an another side, too: the brittleness of genius. Many of the most respected artists and writers have lived in poverty, had appeared to their contemporaries as weak and worthless, even though these days we cherish their works and hold their names in hallowed respect. Many other flames of genius have been snuffered out and faded by poverty or violence -- if you have looked at math history, one would remember that Leibnitz died in poverty, and that many many of the well-known names have tied from disease (which would, I guess, make them 'weak') --- people like Abel, Ramanujan, etc. In other words, brutal survival of the species may work if one's life consists of looking for something to eat and how to have children, but as soon as arts and science come into equation, letting people suffer in misery can put us all back decades if not centuries.