Latest Lists

Social Darwinism? Can anybody give me a proper definition, description and example?

I have a general idea of what it is, but can someone get really in depth? And please list at least one resource! (Don't just make something up or write down what you think the definition is!)

Public Comments

1. Social Darwinism, term coined in the late 19th century to describe the idea that humans, like animals and plants, compete in a struggle for existence in which natural selection results in “survival of the fittest.” Social Darwinists base their beliefs on theories of evolution developed by British naturalist Charles Darwin. Some social Darwinists argue that governments should not interfere with human competition by attempting to regulate the economy or cure social ills such as poverty. Instead, they advocate a laissez-faire political and economic system that favors competition and self-interest in social and business affairs. Social Darwinists typically deny that they advocate a “law of the jungle.” But most propose arguments that justify imbalances of power between individuals, races, and nations because they consider some people more fit to survive than others. The term social Darwinist is applied loosely to anyone who interprets human society primarily in terms of biology, struggle, competition, or natural law (a philosophy based on what are considered the permanent characteristics of human nature). Social Darwinism characterizes a variety of past and present social policies and theories, from attempts to reduce the power of government to theories exploring the biological causes of human behavior. Many people believe that the concept of social Darwinism explains the philosophical rationalization behind racism, imperialism, and capitalism. The term has negative implications for most people because they consider it a rejection of compassion and social responsibility. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579584/social_darwinism.html
2. What the man above me said is the correct definition for Social Darwinism if you ever need it for a class or something like that. I just find it funny that an encyclopedia is biased. I will try to make it a little more even. The article says that lasseiz fare capitalism results in a "law of the jungle" or "survival of the fittest." It does not try to objectively state the opinion of lasseiz fare capitalists. Some may hold this ("social darwinism") for their reason for supporting it, but definitely not the majority. Lasseiz fare capitalism (hands off government, separation of economics and state) does not create a "survival of the fittest" environment. Lasseiz fare capitalism creates results that are the greatest production and standard of living for all. Most all capitalists agree that it is the system that creates the best possible environment for society. A lot of capitalist use this a their justification for the system. This is not the reason i advocate Lasseiz fare capitalism, but it is a plus. I advocate lasseiz fare capitalism because it is the only morally acceptable system of politics.
3. Social darwinism is the position that conceives society as another environment in which natural selection acts (and it can cause societies to evolve, although I will omit saying something about this last part because by now there is not a single biologist that sustains that natural evolution also implies some sort of teleological progress). Some people claim that this is what IN FACT happens in society, and some other people besides that also claim that this SHOULD happen in society for any reason. Lets us call the first, descriptive social darwinism (DSD), and let us call the second, normative social darwinism (NSD). What are the differences? Well people who are only in the first group, DSD, recognize that competition and survival of the fittest is a phenomenon occurring in every society, but they do not necessarily accept it. People of just the first group in fact, can try help to diminish it. For example, regulating markets and so on. People that fit in the second group tend to be conservative in the sense that social inequalities are natural results of inner society struggle, and besides, that those inequalities are in various degrees fair and deserved. In economy, the so called neoliberals belong to this group. So, for instance, economic liberal people (not rawlsian liberals) are most likely to go along the some version of the NSD, as long as they defend the statu quo using arguments of the superior administrative intelligence and skills of currently rich people (they would be the best fit economically speaking) and their deservedness of it. Although they actually try to reject on other basis, political intelligence and skills if that results in the limitation of free market with, for instance, demagogic or populist arguments. I think that a lot of political authors defend some version of DSD or NSD at some point if you consider that justice has been understood since Plato, as the amount of correctness to which the (naturally or socially) strong should remain unlimited or unpunished, by society's regulations. Social darwinism is a set of ideas rooted in Herbert Malthus' works. Indeed Malthus' ideas about the survival of the fittest in society influenced Darwin's theory of evolution and not the other way. (For a little more details on this issue, check the wikipedia article on Malthus) [To read something about the topic, probably you should check works of: Malthus, Darwin, Dawkins, Gould, Kropotkin, Spencer, ...]