Social
Darwinism, Herbert Spencer, Ethics and Morals
Social Darwinism is a belief, popular in the late Victorian era[1]
in
Spencer and Social Darwinism
Herbert
Spencer took "might makes right" sorts of views long before
However, Spencer did not
just present his theories as placing humans on a parallel with nature. Not only was survival of the fittest natural,
but it was also morally correct. Indeed,
some extreme Social Darwinists argued that it was morally incorrect to assist
those weaker than oneself, since that would be promoting the survival and
possible reproduction of someone who was fundamentally unfit.
Applications of Social Darwinism
Social
Darwinism was used to justify numerous exploits that are of dubious[3]
moral value today. Colonialism was seen
as natural and inevitable, and given justification through Social Darwinian
ethics – people saw natives as being weaker and less fit to survive, and
therefore felt justified in seizing land and resources from them. Social Darwinism applied to military action
as well; the argument went that the strongest military would win, and would
therefore be the most fit. Casualties on
the losing side, of course, were written off as the natural result of their
unfit status. Finally, it gave the
ethical nod to brutal colonial governments who used oppressive tactics against
their subjects.
In its most
extreme forms, Social Darwinism has been used to justify eugenics programs[4]
aimed at eliminating "undesirable" genes from the population; such
programs were sometimes accompanied by sterilization laws directed against
"unfit" individuals. The
American eugenics movement was relatively popular between about 1910-1930,
during which 24 states passed sterilization laws and Congress passed a law
restricting immigration from certain areas deemed to be unfit. Social Darwinist ideas, though in different
forms, were also applied by the Nazi party in
Positive Results of Social Darwinism
Though its
moral basis is now generally opposed, Social Darwinism did have some favorable
effects. Belief in Social Darwinism
tended to discourage wanton handouts to the poor, favoring instead providing
resources for the fittest of all walks of life to use, or choosing specific,
genuinely deserving people as recipients of help and support. Some major capitalists, such as Andrew
Carnegie, combined philanthropy with Social Darwinism; he used his vast fortune
to set up hundreds of libraries and other public institutions, including a
university, for the benefit of those who would choose to avail themselves of
such resources. He opposed direct and
indiscriminate[5] handouts
to the poor because he felt that this favored the undeserving and the deserving
person equally.
The Problem with Social Darwinism
First, it
makes the faulty assumption that what is natural equals what is morally
correct. In other words, it falls prey
to the belief that just because something takes place in nature, it must be a
moral idea for humans to follow.
This theory
falls tries to derive an ought
statement from an is
statement. For example, the fact that
you did stub your toe this morning
does not logically imply that you ought
to have stubbed your toe! The same argument applies to the Social Darwinists'
attempt to extend natural processes into human social structures.